The Second Amendment's right to self defense

[Procrustes Stretched]

Contumacious: Pseudo-intellectualism and Misanthropic Troglodytes Gone Wild.​

People like Contumacious are text book examples of pseudo-intellectuals.
"
take the argument apart:

1) We have a Constitution only in Theory Vernon.

2) The fascists nominate their own to the federal bench. Those "judges" ignore the Constitution and declare bold face usurpations as being Constitutional.

3) Read the founding fathers' experience with tyrannical british "judges"

---

1) We have a Constitution. why? Because no one has gotten rid of it. It exists and it is referred to constantly. It exists in the real world.

2) Fascists get to nominate judges? Really? Calling elected officials fascists, is a pseudo-intellectual's calling card. Even if you bought this premise, how could one tie that in with judges ignoring the Constitution? Are the judges ignoring a constitution that exists in theory only, and why would they?

3) British judges from the 18th century are a different species than judges in America be it the 18th, 19th, 20th, or 21st centuries. Comparing them is to be ignorant or partly educated in -- history as well as reality.

that said, I love my pseudo-intellectuals. They make life worth observing.


dD

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The second amendment does not cover the right to self defense.......only a well regulated militia

Thread over as of this (the second) post. What's all the discussion about since then?

nothing to do with the 2nd. But that is par for the course @ USMB

 

[WinterBorn]

The second amendment does not cover the right to self defense.......only a well regulated militia

Absolutely false. It mentions a well regulated militia, but it states "the right of the people", not a right of militia or of the gov't.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The second amendment does not cover the right to self defense.......only a well regulated militia

Absolutely false. It mentions a well regulated militia, but it states "the right of the people", not a right of militia or of the gov't.

critical thinking skills lacking?

The people refers to the citizens of the nation, not the individual states.

Free State, refers to the federal government.

---

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

So, we the people have the right to bear arms, so that the State shall remain free. The State is the federal government, a government of, by, and for, the people.

 

[WinterBorn]

The second amendment does not cover the right to self defense.......only a well regulated militia

Absolutely false. It mentions a well regulated militia, but it states "the right of the people", not a right of militia or of the gov't.

critical thinking skills lacking?

The people refers to the citizens of the nation, not the individual states.

Free State, refers to the federal government.

---

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

So, we the people have the right to bear arms, so that the State shall remain free. The State is the federal government, a government of, by, and for, the people.

No lack of critical thinking skills on my part. The entire point of the Bill of rights is to protect the rights of the people. Regardless of the first part of the sentence, the fact that it says "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is unequivocal. The rights of the people to have firearms is a constitutional right. It is not, and never has been, a collective right or a right only for those in a militia or military.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The second amendment does not cover the right to self defense.......only a well regulated militia

No doubt the SCOTUS did not confer with you


SCOTUS

2008 District of Columbia v. Heller

"The Second Amendment guarantees 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. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed."​

2010 McDonald v. Chicago

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Absolutely false. It mentions a well regulated militia, but it states "the right of the people", not a right of militia or of the gov't.

critical thinking skills lacking?

The people refers to the citizens of the nation, not the individual states.

Free State, refers to the federal government.

---

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

So, we the people have the right to bear arms, so that the State shall remain free. The State is the federal government, a government of, by, and for, the people.

No lack of critical thinking skills on my part. The entire point of the Bill of rights is to protect the rights of the people. Regardless of the first part of the sentence, the fact that it says "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is unequivocal. The rights of the people to have firearms is a constitutional right. It is not, and never has been, a collective right or a right only for those in a militia or military.

I agree. But facts are important. The SCOTUS historically has avoided the issue until recently. The argument has been open (legally) for quite some time.

 

[WinterBorn]

critical thinking skills lacking?

The people refers to the citizens of the nation, not the individual states.

Free State, refers to the federal government.

---

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

So, we the people have the right to bear arms, so that the State shall remain free. The State is the federal government, a government of, by, and for, the people.

No lack of critical thinking skills on my part. The entire point of the Bill of rights is to protect the rights of the people. Regardless of the first part of the sentence, the fact that it says "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is unequivocal. The rights of the people to have firearms is a constitutional right. It is not, and never has been, a collective right or a right only for those in a militia or military.

I agree. But facts are important.

No doubt they are. But the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the people to be armed. And living in a free state places the burden of self protection on the individual.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The second amendment does not cover the right to self defense.......only a well regulated militia

No doubt the SCOTUS did not confer with you


SCOTUS

2008 District of Columbia v. Heller

"The Second Amendment guarantees 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. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed."​

2010 McDonald v. Chicago

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.​

To be clear, you are arguing for an interpretation of words not contained in the 2nd amendment, not arguing that the actual words are contained in the USC?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No lack of critical thinking skills on my part. The entire point of the Bill of rights is to protect the rights of the people. Regardless of the first part of the sentence, the fact that it says "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is unequivocal. The rights of the people to have firearms is a constitutional right. It is not, and never has been, a collective right or a right only for those in a militia or military.

I agree. But facts are important.

No doubt they are. But the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the people to be armed. And living in a free state places the burden of self protection on the individual.

nope. its a free State - capitalized. there are versions with a small state, but as far as my memory serves, it is the version with the capital State, that was ratified.

let me check

 

[Neotrotsky]

The second amendment does not cover the right to self defense.......only a well regulated militia

No doubt the SCOTUS did not confer with you


SCOTUS

2008 District of Columbia v. Heller

"The Second Amendment guarantees 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. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed."​

2010 McDonald v. Chicago

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.​

To be clear, you are arguing for an interpretation of words not contained in the 2nd amendment, not arguing that the actual words are contained in the USC?

Actually I am not arguing anything
Just pointing out the SCOTUS does not agree with the poster's interpretation
of it.

But if you must know ...
Do I agree with it- sure
Do I think the SCOTUS could ever rule different - sure

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No doubt the SCOTUS did not confer with you


SCOTUS

2008 District of Columbia v. Heller

"The Second Amendment guarantees 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. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed."​

2010 McDonald v. Chicago

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.​

To be clear, you are arguing for an interpretation of words not contained in the 2nd amendment, not arguing that the actual words are contained in the USC?

Actually I am not arguing anything
Just pointing out the SCOTUS does not agree with the poster's interpretation
of it.

But if you must know ...
Do I agree with it- sure
Do I think the SCOTUS could ever rule different - sure

attempting to refute an argument without offering a counter argument?

is this a child's magic trick? should we all close our eyes and cover our ears?

stop being a douchebagh and man up.

 

[Neotrotsky]

To be clear, you are arguing for an interpretation of words not contained in the 2nd amendment, not arguing that the actual words are contained in the USC?

Actually I am not arguing anything
Just pointing out the SCOTUS does not agree with the poster's interpretation
of it.

But if you must know ...
Do I agree with it- sure
Do I think the SCOTUS could ever rule different - sure

attempting to refute an argument without offering a counter argument?

is this a child's magic trick? should we all close our eyes and cover our ears?

stop being a douchebagh and man up.

Really, I thought I was being rather open and honest


It has to with facts and the truth
You being leftist, we wouldn't expect you
to understand that,,,


Either way, as current law stands
the poster's point is not valid

Truth is hard for the Left
In fact, it is their worst enemy

 

[JakeStarkey]

..SNIP..

The 2nd Amendment is doing well, old friend, don't worry your pretty little head.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No doubt the SCOTUS did not confer with you


SCOTUS

2008 District of Columbia v. Heller

"The Second Amendment guarantees 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. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed."​

2010 McDonald v. Chicago

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.​

To be clear, you are arguing for an interpretation of words not contained in the 2nd amendment, not arguing that the actual words are contained in the USC?

Actually I am not arguing anything
Just pointing out the SCOTUS does not agree with the poster's interpretation
of it.

But if you must know ...
Do I agree with it- sure
Do I think the SCOTUS could ever rule different - sure

attempting to refute an argument without offering a counter argument?

is this a child's magic trick? should we all close our eyes and cover our ears?

stop being a douchebagh and man up.

Really, I thought I was being rather open and honest


It has to with facts and the truth
You being leftist, we wouldn't expect you
to understand that,,,


Either way, as current law stands
the poster's point is not valid

Truth is hard for the Left
In fact, it is their worst enemy

Being honest and open, you? Delusion, is your strong point.

but we digress: our words speak for themselves - "Actually I am not arguing anything"

As current law stands of course. no one is arguing that current law, the interpretation of the USC, does NOT say what it says. some people are criticizing current law - law based on interpretation.

so, you agree the USC is a document open to interpretation?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

To be clear, you are arguing for an interpretation of words not contained in the 2nd amendment, not arguing that the actual words are contained in the USC?

Yep.

If conservatives are to accept Heller, then they must also accept Griswold/Roe/Casey and the right to privacy, although the word ‘privacy’ is not in the Constitution.

Or,

It they reject Griswold/Roe/Casey, they must also reject Heller and the individual right to own a firearm.

And yes, this applies to liberals as well.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

To be clear, you are arguing for an interpretation of words not contained in the 2nd amendment, not arguing that the actual words are contained in the USC?

Yep.

If conservatives are to accept Heller, then they must also accept Griswold/Roe/Casey and the right to privacy, although the word ‘privacy’ is not in the Constitution.

Or,

It they reject Griswold/Roe/Casey, they must also reject Heller and the individual right to own a firearm.

And yes, this applies to liberals as well.

of course. also, if one accepts the validity of the USC, one accepts the amendment process. doing this means accepting ALL the amendments.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I threw out some bait that the USMB Constitutional experts missed. It involved: Misspellings in the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

New students of the Constitution often see one more thing that raises eyebrows: the use of capital letters in the original text. Some have even gone so far as to say that capitalized words in the original Constitution have some sort of special significance above and beyond the non-capitalized words. This is only true in that most of the non-standard capitalization is done to nouns. Again, this was an issue of style, and is similar to the way German capitalizes nouns — they are simply capitalized, and that's all. The words "People" and "State" have the exact same significance and meaning as "people" and "state". Many modern transcriptions of the Constitution remove this extra capitalization without changing the meaning of the document.

and this http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html isn't a terrible source for delving into the 'commas' argument(s)

The Yassky brief continues: "The Constitution was drafted with great care, and (unlike much legal writing from the Founding period) its use of punctuation generally conforms to modern conventions, suggesting that the commas in the Second Amendment are not haphazard but rather deserve scrupulous attention."

Evidence suggests otherwise. The Lund brief counters: "This desperate gambit ignores the Constitution's frequent use of commas that would be considered extraneous in modern usage (e.g., in the First and Third Amendments)."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

To be clear, you are arguing for an interpretation of words not contained in the 2nd amendment, not arguing that the actual words are contained in the USC?

Yep.

If conservatives are to accept Heller, then they must also accept Griswold/Roe/Casey and the right to privacy, although the word ‘privacy’ is not in the Constitution.

Or,

It they reject Griswold/Roe/Casey, they must also reject Heller and the individual right to own a firearm.

And yes, this applies to liberals as well.

of course. also, if one accepts the validity of the USC, one accepts the amendment process. doing this means accepting ALL the amendments.

And one must accept how the Amendments are interpreted by the Court.

Heller is remarkable in its lack of emphasis of cited case law, Scalia instead relied on a massive body of primary documents, English Common Law, and the formation of states’ constitutions during the Foundation Era.

Did Scalia contrive the individual right out of whole cloth? Perhaps, but in the end it makes no difference. There is nothing as to the Framers’ original intent as to the Second Amendment, and the use of ‘original understanding’ of the Amendment at the time of its ratification is reasonable.

This in conjunction with the fact that the dissenting opinions were also predicated on speculation and conjecture leads one to concede this is now settled law, as there are really no grounds upon which to base reversal by a future Court, save a partisan motive.

 

[USMCSergeant]

There should be no misunderstanding about the 2A, Jefferson was very clear on what the amendment meant for citizens.

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms ."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution 1776. Papers, 1:353

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

George Washington had opinions also:

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington

Others:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
-- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861
(This opinion may have changed after 1865, I'm not sure.)

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."

-- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court

To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.
-- "M.T. Cicero", in a newspaper letter of 1788 touching the "militia"
referred to in the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

I could continue, but there is no need. It is blatantly obvious what the 2A means. It is absolutely an individual right, and those that would want to take this right away due to their own fear, are of the highest order of idiots.