The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'Politics' started by P@triot, Jan 7, 2018.

  1. Contumacious
    Offline

    Contumacious Radical Freedom

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Messages:
    19,001
    Thanks Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Location:
    Adjuntas, PR , USA
    Ratings:
    +5,598

    Very interrresting

    So we are FREE PEOPLE with the RIGHT TO LIFE but we don't have a right to defend it.

    Sad.



    Stupid motherfucker moron

    Either the free market provide firearms and ammunitions or we will buy them in the black market.

    There is NOTHING that you and your ilk can do. NOTHING


    ,
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    64,922
    Thanks Received:
    11,448
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +46,603

    Moron....he quotes a tiny phrase used by Marshall...and you think that means anything, he wasn't even referring to the 2nd Amendment when he stated

    However, no less a constitutional authority than Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall disagrees, declaring that “it cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.”

    that Statement has no bearing on the 2nd Amendment.....and the doofus in your link puts it in there, while Scalia breaks down the 2nd Amendment wtih examples and legal Precedent.....you are such a doofus...

    This is just the introduction to Heller....Scalia goes on in great, minute, detail about the wording of the 2nd Amendment..

    (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54

    Now....going into it deeper...Look at Scalia, and then tell me that tiny statement from Marshall has any bearing on the 2nd Amendment argument....

    II

    We turn first to the meaning of the Second Amendment. A The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation. The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).

    Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.

    The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.

    The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).


    Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821

    Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.”

    That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.”

    The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “‘It is nothing unusual in acts . . . for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’” J. Bishop,

    Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.4 1.

    Operative Clause.

    a. “Right of the People.”

    The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”

    The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause.

    The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

    Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”).

    Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights.

    Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6

    What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.


    As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990): “‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by theFourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”


    This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause.

    As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”


    We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.” Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

    I would go on, but If you have any intelligence you would see that the author of your link has no idea what they are talking about...
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. P@triot
    Offline

    P@triot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    44,904
    Thanks Received:
    4,985
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    United States
    Ratings:
    +23,779
    I suggest you simply learn to read, Guy Catcher...
    You’re gun rights are guaranteed and unlimited. It could not be more black and white (unless one is an illiterate progressive).
     
  4. P@triot
    Offline

    P@triot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    44,904
    Thanks Received:
    4,985
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    United States
    Ratings:
    +23,779
    1. I can absolutely assure you that Guy Catcher has no intelligence

    2. He provides “essays” written by idiot progressives for his arguments :laugh:

    3. Like all facists, he’s irate that he doesn’t get to control you or your choices
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    48,412
    Thanks Received:
    14,385
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +32,059

    Personal safety is not only the justification for the 2nd Amendment. An individual's right to own a gun is also to hold in check a tyrannical government.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Daryl Hunt
    Offline

    Daryl Hunt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    4,565
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,209
    Oh, I agree. Personal Safety. And a tyrannical government.

    When other's personal safety becomes a factor maybe that shouldalso be factroed in as well. When our rights jeapordise others rights then we need to modify our own rights.

    Now about that tyranical government. If we have a system in place to prevent it then that part of the 2nd amendment really has no meaning. We, techincally, have a revolution every 2 and 4 years at the ballot box.
     
  7. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    43,334
    Thanks Received:
    5,743
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +15,926
    Oh so emotional, and so willing to be a felon. Better think before you act, since you haven't read and understood the link. Gun control is a common sense response to what has become a national disgrace. GUN CONTROL IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS, OR WILL BECOME.
     
  8. BULLDOG
    Offline

    BULLDOG Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2014
    Messages:
    45,315
    Thanks Received:
    5,396
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +28,807
    Bullshit no matter how many times you post that crap.
     
  9. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    43,691
    Thanks Received:
    5,883
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +17,425
    I can give you an expert who disagrees

    Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

    He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.

    That sounds like an expert to me. and he says

    The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

    Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters
     
  10. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    43,334
    Thanks Received:
    5,743
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +15,926
    Most defenders of the 2nd A. who argue the point you claim is a guarantee and provides an unlimited right so obsessively may not know what a clause represents; thus they read what they want to hear. For some it is willful ignorance, for others a fear of cognitive dissonance and for most simply an echo of what they want to be true. From the link you didn't read, could not understand, or choose (or are incapable of) refuting here is the germane point made in the link I provided.

    Read these sentences:

    “Their project being complete, the team disbanded.”

    “Stern discipline being called for, the offending student was expelled.”

    In both cases, the initial dependent clause is not superfluous to the meaning of the entire sentence: it is integral. The team disbanded because the project was complete; the student was expelled because his offense called for stern discipline. This causal relationship cannot be ignored. Reading the Second Amendment as “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” clearly shows the same causal relationship as the example sentences; in this case, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is essential to maintaining a well-regulated militia.

    The meme that every ARM is legal and any attempt to restrict a weapon of war from any citizen violates the Right to bare arms is foolish and only fools, liars and those who benefit from such meme make this claim.

    Scalia chose to baffle us with bullshit when he wrote the majority opinion (5-4) in Heller.
     

Share This Page