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.
The military is irrelevent in the case of the 2nd amendment. It is controlled by the federal government, including all National Guard units, and therefore cannot be considered criteria for militia as it pertains to the amendment. The basic principle behind the amendment was protection from the government and a physical deterrent from adopting monarchy. Therefore any organization controlled by the government fails the framers litmus test for militia.
Do you know of such groups? I don't. The National Guard was debunked above. This could be any organization that calls itself a militia. Too broad of a definition.
So basically anyone registered for Selective Service can own a gun. This means that women can't own guns. Also, does this mean that at age 27 you will have to give up your guns? Since these individuals could be tapped for govt. Military service at any time, then this contingent would be corrupted and not favorable to the original purpose.
This could be a right wing militia group that operates out of a cabin in Montana or the NRA. I'm a member of the NRA. So ding ding, I am in a militia. I get to keep my guns. LOL
I find the amendment absolutely clear. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Interesting. I'm assuming you are a conservative, yes? Your constituional interpretation is decidedly liberal. Looking into the purpose and intent of the founders as opposed to the words on the page is certainly something Scalia and Thomas would frown upon.
So then I can walk down the street with a rocket launcher?
Umm...you just cited a case which infringed on the right to bear arms, which you said couldn't happen. Further they cited the militia requirement, which I said had may come into play and you seemed to dismiss.
Why exactly did you cite this case again?
I am a moderate. I tend to lean right, but I am receptive to a few ideas from the left. National healthcare for one interests me, but it simply wouldn't work in our society. I also feel that what the framers had in mind is absolutely pertinent to constitutional interpretation. It is a living document. It is not law but a foundation for our laws to be built upon.
With the constitution being a foundation, you can pass laws that pertain to today's society. So no, you may not wlak down the street with a rocket launcher, because federal law says you may not do so. The constitution is not absolute, but should not be tampered with. When a foundation is moved or cracked, the structure it supports will crumble.
I'll add: do note the distinction between the right to bear arms and regulation of that right.
In the case I cited, the Supreme Court DOES uphold the right to bear arms. It does not uphold the individual's right to posess any kind of arm he so desires, and I agree with that decision.
However, the Supreme Court has NOT ruled as of yet on whether or not one side of the argument or the other is correct as far as the Second Amendment itself goes.
That makes this argument opinion vs opinion. You're entitled to yours ... I just don't agree with it.
This seems contradictory to me. It says you can't infringe on the right to bear arms...which you believe in, but yet you thing that if today's society says we can infringe upon it, we can? That seems quite strange and a bit begging the question. The Constitution is not absolute? I disagree with that quite strongly...it can be interpreted in very different ways which makes it flexible but it is absolute in the sense that you cannot do something directly contrary to it.
Regulation is not infringment. If it were then permits to protest would not exist and "free speech zones" would be ruled unconstitutional.
If the US Consitution were absolute, then it could not be amended.
Items would not be able to be simply crossed out as it is in my copy. Disagree if you want, but my belief in a nonconnsumate consitution does not at all diminish the amount of respect I have for it. Laws regulating arms do not contradict the constitution, just as a "free speech zone" does not contradict the 1st amendment.
But that is your decision about safety, it does not impact me in an accident. Having weapons everywhere is quite a different orange. And gun regulation is great stuff, just like seat belts, not anti-gun but pro common sense.
You part of a militia? No? Then hand over your gun.
Actually it has three different statements followed by a comma and then says "shall not be infringed". Its unclear exactly what shall not be infringed, and its unclear whether they mean that only citizens in the militia can bear arms or not.
So then I can walk down the street with a rocket launcher?
In the case I cited, the Supreme Court DOES uphold the right to bear arms. It does not uphold the individual's right to posess any kind of arm he so desires, and I agree with that decision.
) that the right to keep and bear arms is neccessarily a militia issue. Such insistence asserts that the point of the 2nd was to assure that militiary weaponry (<b>all</b> manner of militiary weaponry) was possessed, in as substantial a way possible, by the people and not just the government.They don't have to--it's asserted by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.Really? Where exactly in the case does the USSC say that one has a right to bear arms?
Regulation is not infringment. If it were then permits to protest would not exist and "free speech zones" would be ruled unconstitutional.
You're right in that they don't neccessarily have to contradict the constitution, but you're wrong in the assertion that they don't.Laws regulating arms do not contradict the constitution, just as a "free speech zone" does not contradict the 1st amendment.
Why do some people fear decent, civilized folks with guns? What plans do these "fearful" have for the decent civilized folks, such that armed, decent, civilized folks present such a problem that disarmament must occur first?
Why should some people be so afraid that others might be able to defend themselves with the very best technology available to them?
Firstly, practically everyone is a member of the militia these days.
Secondly, the Second Amendment does not, in any manner state that the right to bear arms is contingent upon the existence of the militia--it says the the existence of the militia is contingent upon the right to keep and bear arms, and the existence of the militia is essential to the secuity of a free state.
There is no link between the necessity of the militia and the exercise of the right. The right exists on its own, and the federal governemt has (or at least claimed at the authoring of the constitution) no jurisdiction over other applications of "the right" other than those specified under the government's responsibility to national defense. Thus, whereas the federal government could not make constutional notation regarding hunting, or target shooting, or various other excersises of "the right"--it could make notation regarding national defense via the militia, over which it was empowered to assume jurisdiction, and did so to establish the federal interest in recognizing and protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
That is a right protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Why should some people be so afraid that others might be able to defend themselves with the very best technology available to them?
They don't have to--it's asserted by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
Decent civilized folks like Kazmierczak, right?
Because guns are only used for defense, right?
Pray tell exactly what definition you are using since approximately 60% of the US population doesn't fall into any of those categories. Hardly "practically everyone".
mmm another constitutional law scholar.
Actually it does have jurisdiction over that right. See numerous court cases starting with the one Gunny cited, US v. Miller and ending up with Prinz.
Umm, no. That is an idiotic interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
K...lets sell Iran, North Korea, Burma, etc, etc, nukes them. Awesome reasoning there.
Actually they interpret exactly what it says, not you, and they don't agree with you.
Why do you ignore the decency and civility of his victims? Or everybody else around him?
Did I say this? I think not. And you certainly ignored point. BRAVO!
Well, if you try to explain to women, or anybody else able bodied, how they can't be in the militia you might find that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause">you're wrong</a>.
It's just <a href="http://www.2asisters.org/unabridged.htm">plain english</a>, pal.
As if the Supreme Court has never been proven wrong.
Read the 2nd Amendment. In what way is a rocket launcher not arms? In what way is walking down the street with a rocket launcher not bearing arms?
Irrelevent to the point, and submitted as if we haven't done so.
As if the Supreme Court has never been proven wrong.
And you know they are decent and civil, how exactly?
*sigh*...I was mocking your point with the fairly obvious response that if you say that people should have the best defense possible, by giving them that you are also providing them with the best offense possible.
You didn't say practically anyone COULD be a member of the militia you said they already ARE a member of the militia. So no, I'm not wrong.
Cause English words only have one interpretation, right? Try reading some Wittgenstein, or Quine.
So you trust Roy Copperud over the USSC when interpreting the Constitution? Right....
Oh it is bearing arms, but if you read that the 2nd amendment to allow that, you are taking textualism to its absurd result.
Even Scalia wouldn't agree with you on that.
Actually its quite relevant since it is exactly the point you are arguing.
They should have any arms they want for self defense.
You just don't like it because it shows the utter absurdity of your position.
As if you have more skill in interpreting the Constitution than they do.
Irrelevent.
So? You're still ignoring the point.
Cool, you can be both pedantic and wrong.
Still, there's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that makes belonging to a militia a prerequisite for the right to keep and bear arms.
This is how you evade a response? Citing relativists? BRAVO!
Fine. Apply your demand that the english words used to form the 2nd Amendment are so obsure as to cause them to mean somethin other than what I claim they mean.
No. I consider him to be the better expert on English though.
What is so awfully absurd?
Submitted as if Scalia can't be wrong.
It actually not. It's much closer to the point YOU are arguing.
That's not at all what I'm saying.
Why should some people be so afraid that others might be able to defend themselves with the very best technology available to them?
No. I don't like it because it's your reasoning and not mine.
As if I don't? What do you think you're driving at?
You made a claim. I asked you how you knew that claim. It is not irrelevant at all.
No, I responded to the point.
Lmao, pedantic? The difference is between my statement being correct and being incorrect. Nothing pedantic about that. But of course you want to read it in such a deceptive way so that my statement appears incorrect.
Sure there is. Unless you think they brought up militia just for fun.
Umm, no. Neither are relativististic in the least.
<blockquote><i>"Cause English words only have one interpretation, right? Try reading some Wittgenstein, or Quine."</i></blockquote><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscure">Main Entry: 1<b>ob·scure</b> </a>When did I say they were obscure?
Ah, because thats the only way to interpret the Constitution? Pure textualism is absurd.
About allowing people to walk down the street with rocket launchers? Really? Its not patently fucking obvious? An obviously offensive weapon that can do mass harm?
LMFAO...No. Submitted as if (which is in fact true) Scalia is an extreme textualist, but you go even farther into the absurd that even he would.
Right...cause I am arguing that everyone should be armed to the teeth since we all need to be able to defend outselves
Actually, yes it is. See here:
Its me taking your absurd reasoning to its logical conclusion.
...the obvious conclusion that you don't.
Ok. My claim is that you're ignoring their decency and civility--and you are. Whether I know the exact nature of that decency and civility is irrelevent to the point.
Actually you didn't.
Pedantic does not mean "incorrect", even if you are both pedantic and wrong.
You can't demonstrate that by reading the 2nd Amendment.
LOLsome.
Absurd is the notion that the 2nd Amendment says something other than what it says.
Yes, that. What exactly is wrong with that.
What, exactly, is absurd about the assertion that the 2nd Amendment says exactly what it says, and that is exactly what it was meant to say?
That is not what I said you are arguing.
That quote is an assertion different from the one you claim I'm arguing.
No. It's taking my reasoning in the opposite direction.
Then it should be easy to illustrate--do so.
Lmao...I'm ignoring something that you don't know whether exists or not. I didn't ask you to describe the exact nature of it, I asked you to describe how you know its there.
Stunning argument
I know what pedantic means, thanks. Try reading what I said.
Sure I can.
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.
The right of the people who are part of a militia shall not have their right to bear arms infringed upon. This is through the interpretative idea that everything in a sentence means something, or it would not have been included. Your interpretation leaves out the militia and makes it extra nonsense.
...
Try reading them, then get back to me. Neither were relativists. That you think so shows your ignorance.
Try not to have so many logical flaws. Circular arguments are cute, but so 1994.
Gee, maybe that if the VT guy had a few of those he would have been able to kill a lot more people. Shall we provide him with a tank as well? Maybe a nuclear weapon? Why limit serial killers to only a few dozen victims? Lets allow them to wipe out entire cities even!
tsk...so '94.
The sarcasm went right over your head.
Its basically the same.
Sure.
Lmao...that the USSC has more skill in interpreting the Constitution than you do? Sure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter
David Souters resume. Want to give me yours? Want to tell me what law school you went too? Want to describe the different aspects of Constitutional interpretation? What experience you've had in the field?
Loki - what is wrong with walking down the street with a rocket launcher?
Context is everything!
Amendment II
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.
