Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There should be no misunderstanding about the 2A, Jefferson was very clear on what the amendment meant for citizens.
...
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.
There should be no misunderstanding about the 2A, Jefferson was very clear on what the amendment meant for citizens.
...
that settles that. Jefferson is the last word on all things constitutional.
There should be no misunderstanding about the 2A, Jefferson was very clear on what the amendment meant for citizens.
...
that settles that. Jefferson is the last word on all things constitutional.
He did write the majority of the document. I do not think he's the last word on the constitution, but to me his opinions are important. I also posted quotes from quite a few other people besides Jefferson.
Overall, reading quotes attributed to our founders it seems clear they meant for individuals to have a right to defend themselves with firearms. The shall not be infringed part of the amendment seems very clear as well.
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)."
Thanks for that link! I'm going to do some extensive reading tonight. I'll leave you with this:
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison, Federalist, No. 46
A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace.
James Madison, The Federalist Papers
He did write the majority of the document. I do not think he's the last word on the constitution, but to me his opinions are important. I also posted quotes from quite a few other people besides Jefferson.
Overall, reading quotes attributed to our founders it seems clear they meant for individuals to have a right to defend themselves with firearms. The shall not be infringed part of the amendment seems very clear as well.
As we know the Framers were not of one mind with regard to any aspect of the Constitution – opinions and positions ranged from Federalist to anti-Federalist and all points in between. And many of the Framers changed those opinions and positions over time.
Consequently, the justices take into consideration the statements of the Framers along with other evidence when composing an opinion, and give those statements equal weight compared to the other evidence.
You -continue- to lie about this?The second amendment does not cover the right to self defense.......only a well regulated militia
Damn..beat me to it.
It's "people" not "person".
The second amendment is the most abused amendment in the constitution.
Rather than accept reality, so very many poeople choose to stick their fingers in their ears and scream "I canlt hear you" as loud as they can.The second amendment does not cover the right to self defense.......only a well regulated militia
The Supreme Court disagrees.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Only if by 'over' you mean 'unaddressed'.Thread over as of this (the second) post.The second amendment does not cover the right to self defense.......only a well regulated militia
The right to keep and bear arms covers a great many things - inarguably, self-defense is one of them. To place focus on one of thse great many things does not deny the existence, and does not diminish the imprtance of, the others.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?
I know quite a few liberals that have been against weapons most of their lives, and taught lots of them basic hungun gun, and advanced hundgun classes last year. Some of them are asking for rifle safety classes. I think that is a really good thing, and I like teaching new students.
The right to keep and bear arms covers a great many things - inarguably, self-defense is one of them. To place focus on one of thse great many things does not deny the existence, and does not diminish the imprtance of, the others.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?
Okay, guy, the founders also thought that leeches were an effective way to treat diseases and people owning other people was just dandy.
So I'm not sure why you go to them as an authority on gun ownership.
We don't have militias anymore. We have a professionally trained police, military and national guard armed by the government.
The rational the founders have for everyone to own a gun simply doesn't exist anymore.
That said, I think that law abiding citizens who want guns should have them if they want them, as long as they are licensed and trained and can pass a basic competency test.
I don't think I'm any freer and safer because Jared Loughner or Seung-Hui Cho can walk into a gun store and buy a bunch of firearms when they are obviously out of their minds and are going to do great damage.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is in the 2nd amendment.The right to keep and bear arms covers a great many things - inarguably, self-defense is one of them. To place focus on one of thse great many things does not deny the existence, and does not diminish the imprtance of, the others.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?
again: To be clear, you are arguing for an interpretation of words not contained in the 2nd amendment
