What is so hard to understand?

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. It is not contingent on a person being IN a militia. States have the right to form militias but that is irrelevant to the right to bear arms.

Further what part of supposed assault weapons are specifically covered by the 2nd don't people understand? The Supreme Court has on several occasions stated or affirmed that a weapon is only covered by the 2nd Amendment if it is suitable to the Militia, which means in use by the military, of use to the military or in prior use by the military. See White Vs Texas in 1939 for the actual text.

I see both sides of it.

As a gun owner, I fully support my right to keep and bear arms to protect myself from others and the government.

However, when that right is abused, as is happening so often in this day and age, I fully understand why some would look at that provision and ask the question," Does that right, endowed in the age of muskets still apply in the age of semi automatic rifles? "

Its an honest and legitimate question. One that we need to be willing to answer just as honestly. And the answer must be one your can say while looking into the eyes of the parents of Veronica Mosher, the 6 year old girl killed in the Batman Movie Massacre.

Do you really have THAT kind of an answer?

Yep. Unquestionably.
Cuz, you see, thinking people base their decisions on due process of thought, rather than emotion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is, the Court held that weapons that weren't in common use in the military weren't protected. It does not follow from that that the Court asserts that weapons that were in common use are protected. At best, it suggests that.

"At best, it suggests that"

It certainly doesn't suggest anything else.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Putting aside certain issues of syntax and punctuation in your query, I would say that I understand fairly well whether "assault weapons" are "specifically covered by the 2nd": they aren't. The second amendment was written in the eighteenth century; assault weapons were developed in the twentieth century

The 1st amendment was written in the 18th century. Cable news networks, the 20th.
The 4th Amendment was written in the 18th century. Cell phones, the 20th.
Under your argument, neither amendment applies to either item.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is not only evidence, there is proof. Take, as a single example, the following statement made by George Mason regarding the pre-Amendment Constitution:

The militia may be here destroyed by that method
which has been practiced in other parts of the world
before; that is, by rendering them useless—by disarming
them. Under various pretences, Congress may
neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia;
and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress
has the exclusive right to arm them.

- Was Mason involved in the writing/ratification of the Constitution? Yes.

Yep.

- Do Mason's words support (not prove) the notion that his idea, in eventually supporting the Bill of Rights, would have been to ensure that Congress could not disarm militias and thereby subordinate the rather than to ensure that Congress could not disarm individual civilians? Yes.

Nope. What he says here does not address the point I made.
He talks about the necessity of protecting the militia from the bad intentions of Congress; he says nothing about the 2nd protecting a collective right to the exclusion of an individual right.

Thus, we may conclude that there is both proof and evidence that some of the framers said things that support (though of course not prove) the notion of the right to bear arms as being tied to militia service.

Make up your mind - is there proof or not?

 

[midcan5]

Why does everyone skip over regulated?

"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud-- I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. " In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state." http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/archive/76368/second-amendment-gun-rights


"[A] law requiring "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen" to join the militia and to provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service...."
[..] Below is a concept lost today?
"The requirement to join the militia (and purchase arms for the defense of the state) was an aspect of civic republicanism-- the political idea that citizens had a duty to work toward the public good and make sacrifices on behalf of their fellow citizens and the republic ..." http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/82666/defense-selfishness


See "A proposal for rational gun control."
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ZJ5J-GTTL/guns.htm

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why does everyone skip over regulated?
"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court...

Meaningless. The court, in Heller, ruled otherwide.

 

[M14 Shooter]

See "A proposal for rational gun control."
A Case for Gun Control

"Rational gun control"...

Although I would personally like to see as many civilian-owned guns eliminated from mainstream society as possible, I realize that this is not a politically realistic goal. Thus, I present my own plans for gun control that I would consider a valid compromise. Perhaps policy discussions can start from these.

...from a guy who wants to ban all guns.


Gun registration is a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same.
Thus, it is an infringement,
Unless you can show that the state has a compelling interest in knowing the identity of ever gun owner, and that gun registration is the least restrictive means to that end, registration violates the constitution.

Instant background checks on people attempting to buy guns or ammunition.

We already have a national instant check system.
Said system is a form of prior restraint, which is always constitutionally intolerable.

Stiffer sentences for gun crimes. This has been the position of the NRA for quite some time, and it is certainly one with which I agree.

Pretty much everyone supports this, save for a few ‘community organizers’ trying to get out the (D) vote.

4. Gun education. Many guns are involved in accidents that could easily have been prevented by a little care or forethought. Perhaps gun purchasers should be required to take lessons in gun safety, at the purchaser's expense. Again, the NRA has long been a proponent of gun education.

This violates the constitution every bit as much a requiring a woman who wants an abortion to 'take a class' on both abortion and birth control.
However, I FULLY support basic gun safety education classes as a graduation requirement for all public schools.

Hand grip ID tagging.

Constitutional issues aside...
Imagine the same for cars and then tell us why it won't work.

 

[TomasG]

The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. It is not contingent on a person being IN a militia. States have the right to form militias but that is irrelevant to the right to bear arms.

Further what part of supposed assault weapons are specifically covered by the 2nd don't people understand? The Supreme Court has on several occasions stated or affirmed that a weapon is only covered by the 2nd Amendment if it is suitable to the Militia, which means in use by the military, of use to the military or in prior use by the military. See White Vs Texas in 1939 for the actual text.

United_States_v._Miller

The U.S Government appealed the decision and on March 30, 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.

The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.

The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.

The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."


The NFA, the Supreme court rulings all make a heavy emphasis on either a) any militia organization or b) well regulated militia

To my mind the Supreme court draws a direct connection between the possession of arms (2nd amendment) in direct connection to a regulated/organized militia

I do not see any Supreme court connection that applies to the 2nd amendment on an individual basis for the sake of independent use outside of a organized militia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I do not see any Supreme court connection that applies to the 2nd amendment on an individual basis for the sake of independent use outside of a organized militia.

Err... you're kidding, right?

1. The Second Amendment 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.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

But hey -- good to know you think that the Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.

 

[TomasG]

I do not see any Supreme court connection that applies to the 2nd amendment on an individual basis for the sake of independent use outside of a organized militia.

Err... you're kidding, right?

1. The Second Amendment 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.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

I stand corrected. Thank you M14

Although I am a gun owner myself, my literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a bit more literal.

 

[jwoodie]

Despite the cherry picking of SCOTUS decisions, all of the first ten Amendments were restrictions on Federal powers, which were reserved for the States. The specific wording of the Second Amendment ("militia" and "bear arms") obviously had a military connotation. That being said, the inalienable individual rights to life and liberty in the Declaration of Independence obviously include the right to self defense.

Funny how there's no evidence that anyone involved in the writing/ratifying of the Constitution or bill of rights says anything that supports the idea that the amendment protects the right to arms only when connected to service in the militia.
That's -no- evidence. None.

At least try to get the wording correct: ...the right to BEAR arms connotes entering into a state of hostility or of readiness for war.

P.S. Repeatedly answering your own posts connotes mental instability.

P.P.S. I liked the M-14 much better than the M-16, especially when doing the Manual of Arms.

 

[Borillar]

The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. It is not contingent on a person being IN a militia. States have the right to form militias but that is irrelevant to the right to bear arms.

Further what part of supposed assault weapons are specifically covered by the 2nd don't people understand? The Supreme Court has on several occasions stated or affirmed that a weapon is only covered by the 2nd Amendment if it is suitable to the Militia, which means in use by the military, of use to the military or in prior use by the military. See White Vs Texas in 1939 for the actual text.

So, my deer rifle is not covered by the 2nd amendment, but James Holmes's AR15 with 100 round magazine is?

I get that the 2nd amendment says what it says and that the courts affirm this right. What I guess I don't understand is why lawmakers haven't changed this to something more reasonable for this day and age. Perhaps the country would be better off if the 2nd amendment covered folks' hunting rifles and shotguns, but left WMD's out of the hands of the James Holmes of the world. When the founders wrote the constitution, the weapons of the day were muzzle loading flintlock muskets, not machine guns or rapid fire semiautomatics.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Despite the cherry picking of SCOTUS decisions, all of the first ten Amendments were restrictions on Federal powers, which were reserved for the States. The specific wording of the Second Amendment ("militia" and "bear arms") obviously had a military connotation. That being said, the inalienable individual rights to life and liberty in the Declaration of Independence obviously include the right to self defense.

Funny how there's no evidence that anyone involved in the writing/ratifying of the Constitution or bill of rights says anything that supports the idea that the amendment protects the right to arms only when connected to service in the militia.
That's -no- evidence. None.

At least try to get the wording correct: ...the right to BEAR arms connotes entering into a state of hostility or of readiness for war.

This is addressed in Heller.

P.S. Repeatedly answering your own posts connotes mental instability.

Sometimes, the only way I can have an intelligent conversation around here is to talk to myself.

P.P.S. I liked the M-14 much better than the M-16, especially when doing the Manual of Arms.

The M14 is a rifleman's rifle; the M16 is an infantryman's rifle.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. It is not contingent on a person being IN a militia. States have the right to form militias but that is irrelevant to the right to bear arms.

Further what part of supposed assault weapons are specifically covered by the 2nd don't people understand? The Supreme Court has on several occasions stated or affirmed that a weapon is only covered by the 2nd Amendment if it is suitable to the Militia, which means in use by the military, of use to the military or in prior use by the military. See White Vs Texas in 1939 for the actual text.

So, my deer rifle is not covered by the 2nd amendment, but James Holmes's AR15 with 100 round magazine is?

A "deer rifle" is akin to a sniping rifle, which falls under the protection of the 2nd as discussed in Miller. Fact of the matter is that, under Miller, an AR-15 w. 20/30rd USGI magazines is quite possible the very best example of the sort of firearm protected by the 2nd.

I get that the 2nd amendment says what it says and that the courts affirm this right. What I guess I don't understand is why lawmakers haven't changed this to something more reasonable for this day and age.

Lawmakers don't get to amend the Constitution or take away rights because some people think that itis "reasonable" to do so.

Perhaps the country would be better off if the 2nd amendment covered folks' hunting rifles and shotguns, but left WMD's out of the hands of the James Holmes of the world

AR15 = WMD?

Hyperbole gets you nowhere.

When the founders wrote the constitution, the weapons of the day were muzzle loading flintlock muskets, not machine guns or rapid fire semiautomatics.

So, you'll then agree that the 1st amendment does not cover cable TV news networks and the 4th amendment does not cover your cell phone conversations.

 

[ladyliberal]

Putting aside certain issues of syntax and punctuation in your query, I would say that I understand fairly well whether "assault weapons" are "specifically covered by the 2nd": they aren't. The second amendment was written in the eighteenth century; assault weapons were developed in the twentieth century

The 1st amendment was written in the 18th century. Cable news networks, the 20th.
The 4th Amendment was written in the 18th century. Cell phones, the 20th.
Under your argument, neither amendment applies to either item.

I disagree completely. I believe you have misunderstood my argument. You will note in the post which you quoted that I used the word "specifically" repeatedly, quoting RetiredGySgt. My point (which might seem too trivial to address, were it not under challenge within the thread) was simply that assault weapons were not covered specifically. I did not address whether they were covered at all:

A (hypothetical) amendment that covers assault weapons but not specifically:

People shall have the right to bear all weapons.

A (hypothetical) amendment that covers assault weapons specifically:

People shall have the right to bear handguns, swords and assault weapons.


So under my argument, the first amendment does not apply to cable news or to cell phones specifically. Of course, neither the first nor the second amendments are limited to the technologies available at the time of their enactment.

 

[ladyliberal]

Considering the words used, I would say it is black and white. I don’t really care how muddled the ‘scholars’ want to make it. I have yet to hear a well-constructed case that makes the second some vaunted ‘collective’ right or connect it to the militia.
Then what the hell is protected?

It seems that you believe that no weapons whatsoever are protected? Please tell me I am incorrect because under that reasoning, the second is utterly meaningless.

Since you ask, I do believe you are incorrect in your interpretation of what I am saying. But if you truly don't care what scholars say then you should ignore my post, as my own views have been informed by those of scholars.

And limiting yourself to non-scholarly arguments, it is perhaps not surprising that you haven't heard a well-constructed case which reaches different conclusions than your own. In Heller, for instance, the dissent argues that the right is collective and both the dissent and the majority admit that the rights guaranteed by the second amendment are connected to the militia. For the majority, the need to preserve a citizen militia motivated the guarantee of an individual right to bear arms, even though the right was not limited in their view to militia members.

I believe that no weapons are protected by Miller. The case simply held that a particular ban on a particular type of weapon was not a violation of the second amendment. Of course the second amendment protects a (limited) right to bear weapons. There was simply no need for the court to assert that in Miller.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Considering the words used, I would say it is black and white. I don’t really care how muddled the ‘scholars’ want to make it. I have yet to hear a well-constructed case that makes the second some vaunted ‘collective’ right or connect it to the militia.
Then what the hell is protected?

It seems that you believe that no weapons whatsoever are protected? Please tell me I am incorrect because under that reasoning, the second is utterly meaningless.

Since you ask, I do believe you are incorrect in your interpretation of what I am saying. But if you truly don't care what scholars say then you should ignore my post, as my own views have been informed by those of scholars.

And limiting yourself to non-scholarly arguments, it is perhaps not surprising that you haven't heard a well-constructed case which reaches different conclusions than your own. In Heller, for instance, the dissent argues that the right is collective and both the dissent and the majority admit that the rights guaranteed by the second amendment are connected to the militia. For the majority, the need to preserve a citizen militia motivated the guarantee of an individual right to bear arms, even though the right was not limited in their view to militia members.

I believe that no weapons are protected by Miller. The case simply held that a particular ban on a particular type of weapon was not a violation of the second amendment. Of course the second amendment protects a (limited) right to bear weapons. There was simply no need for the court to assert that in Miller.

You are wrong, Miller protects weapons of use, in use or previously used by the military. And several Courts since have agreed.

 

[ladyliberal]

- Do Mason's words support (not prove) the notion that his idea, in eventually supporting the Bill of Rights, would have been to ensure that Congress could not disarm militias and thereby subordinate the rather than to ensure that Congress could not disarm individual civilians? Yes.

Nope. What he says here does not address the point I made.
He talks about the necessity of protecting the militia from the bad intentions of Congress; he says nothing about the 2nd protecting a collective right to the exclusion of an individual right.

Thus, we may conclude that there is both proof and evidence that some of the framers said things that support (though of course not prove) the notion of the right to bear arms as being tied to militia service.

Make up your mind - is there proof or not?

Taking your final point first, I refer you to your own post #21. You ask whether there is evidence that any of the framers said anything to support a notion. I say that there is both evidence and proof that some of the framers did indeed say something that supports that notion (but doesn't prove it). So there is proof of support, but not proof of proof. Given the syntax of your post #21 I'm not sure how else to frame it.

Returning to Mason's words, of course he does not refer to the second amendment. It did not exist at the time he was speaking. That does not negate their significance in providing insight into why Mason might support an amendment like the second and how he would intend it to be interpreted. For instance, both the statements "I went to bed early because I had to get up early" and "I am going to bed early because I have to get up early" provide evidence as to why someone went to bed early, even though one of them would have been made before the fact. The support here is that he speaks of the need to protect the rights of militias from Congress, without identifying any need for armed individuals. As I say, it is support, rather than proof, that Mason and his compatriots intended participation in a militia to be prerequisite to the right to bear arms.

I would also note that I included other examples within the same post which you have not addressed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

- Do Mason's words support (not prove) the notion that his idea, in eventually supporting the Bill of Rights, would have been to ensure that Congress could not disarm militias and thereby subordinate the rather than to ensure that Congress could not disarm individual civilians? Yes.

Nope. What he says here does not address the point I made.
He talks about the necessity of protecting the militia from the bad intentions of Congress; he says nothing about the 2nd protecting a collective right to the exclusion of an individual right.

Thus, we may conclude that there is both proof and evidence that some of the framers said things that support (though of course not prove) the notion of the right to bear arms as being tied to militia service.

Make up your mind - is there proof or not?

Taking your final point first, I refer you to your own post #21. You ask whether there is evidence that any of the framers said anything to support a notion. I say that there is both evidence and proof that some of the framers did indeed say something that supports that notion

Ok. Please cite.

Returning to Mason's words, of course he does not refer to the second amendment. It did not exist at the time he was speaking.

/discussion. See above.

 

[ladyliberal]

Considering the words used, I would say it is black and white. I don’t really care how muddled the ‘scholars’ want to make it. I have yet to hear a well-constructed case that makes the second some vaunted ‘collective’ right or connect it to the militia.
Then what the hell is protected?

It seems that you believe that no weapons whatsoever are protected? Please tell me I am incorrect because under that reasoning, the second is utterly meaningless.

Since you ask, I do believe you are incorrect in your interpretation of what I am saying. But if you truly don't care what scholars say then you should ignore my post, as my own views have been informed by those of scholars.

And limiting yourself to non-scholarly arguments, it is perhaps not surprising that you haven't heard a well-constructed case which reaches different conclusions than your own. In Heller, for instance, the dissent argues that the right is collective and both the dissent and the majority admit that the rights guaranteed by the second amendment are connected to the militia. For the majority, the need to preserve a citizen militia motivated the guarantee of an individual right to bear arms, even though the right was not limited in their view to militia members.

I believe that no weapons are protected by Miller. The case simply held that a particular ban on a particular type of weapon was not a violation of the second amendment. Of course the second amendment protects a (limited) right to bear weapons. There was simply no need for the court to assert that in Miller.

You are wrong, Miller protects weapons of use, in use or previously used by the military. And several Courts since have agreed.

Certainly, some federal judges have said that Miller protected certain weapons. Others have not. As the dissent in Heller notes (I believe the majority opinion does not contest this point), prior to 2001:

every Court of Appeals to consider the question had
understood Miller to hold that the Second Amendment does not protect
the right to possess and use guns for purely private, civilian purposes.

A protection that was rejected by the highest courts that heard it for many decades is not much of a protection.