The Right To Bear Arms

[M14 Shooter]

If you have it, post it. if you do not, do not.

Please also note that the court in Heller talks at some length of the "keep and bear" part of this argument.
How is it wrong?

You're being lazy.

Says he that will not provide information asked of him.

Yes, they talk about keep and bear. However I also know that even Supreme Court justices aren't experts in all areas of law. They were listening to two arguments, the DC side was just completely wrong, so they listened to the Heller side. They didn't necessarily get all of the information on this debate.

You mean they did not get your opinion on the debate, or answer it in a manner consistent with same. Unfortunate for you.

You want "bear arms" to have a necessary relation to service in the militia. It doesn't.
Why? Because "the righto of the people" is not the same as "the right of the militia", and so the "right to bear" of the former is in no way necessarily limited by the "right to bear" of the latter.

You're arguing that the people that wrote the 2nd intended it to protect the right to a weapons so that you might, at the behest of the state, protect your town, state or country, to the total exclusion of any right to said arm for the protection of your house, family or person.

This position is utterly unsupportable by primary source material.

 

[Ernie S.]

I'm being disagreeable because I generally disagree with you. OK?

 

[BreezeWood]

you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.

firearms are weapons of violence not confined to their handlers, the community as a whole has a right to regulate them.

In exactly the same manner as it has a right to regulate speech -- to prohibit speech that harms others or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

How do you think this would apply to the right to arms?

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

as stated, to define what "Arms" refers to in the amendment -

all public firearms "Arms" to be leaver or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine, maximum six round capacity.

.

This is your brilliant restriction?

How do you justify that when you include the phrase that you so obviously want to ignore?

]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

its a definition -

there is no infringement against: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun. There's a little more on this, like the buying and selling, but even that can be restricted, but not much else is protected. Certainly not the carrying of the weapon concealed.

What it comes down to is what "the people" will tolerate. Right now, gun lobbies have been enormously successfully in pushing back on regulations. But as history has shown, their is only so much bloodshed that the American people are willing to tolerate in the civilian space.

99.997% of the guns in the US will not be used to murder anyone this year; only those suffering from abject ignorance or a certain political predisposition sees gun ownership as a "problem" that requires continually limiting the rights of the law abiding.

THAT, not the NRA, is why your side cannot enact any additional gun control.

Assault Rifles were banned for a time as were Saturday Night Specials.

Of course, it doesn't help your cause when you argue from ignorance and/or dishonesty, as you do here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Even if this were true, which I doubt..most guns have one purpose.
To kill human beings.

That's why our right to own and use them is specifically protected by the Constitution.
Duh.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Basically..yeah.

For now.

The argument should be that the 2nd Amendment is no longer necessary since we provide for a permanent military, which includes ground forces.

But adding an amendment that stipulates that citizens may have small arms for defense of the home isn't going to get anywhere.

So right now? While we have a great many judges that are in their seats because of the gun lobby? You are right.

No, that argument wouldn't work at all. It's not just about having a military force in place of a permanent military.

Self defence will be an issue, but the main reason for the 2A is to protect against the maladministration of the government. Ie, the ability to be able to take down the govt.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Infrimnging upon the right to keep and bear arms.

Really?

That's what it says.

Yes, it’s what it says. And what? You have no opinion on this matter. You think it allows an unlimited right to keep arms and whatever you want bear to mean? Really?

Secondly should I make the assumption that you're against the feds infringing on the RKBA for felons, whether in prison or not, children and the mentally ill?

Not everyone has the right to arms, just as not everyone has the right to vote - so, no.

[/QUOTE]


WOOOOW. You say not everyone has the right? Did I read that correctly?

Actually the theory of rights assumes EVERYONE has the right and some are having that right infringed. Maybe you think women don’t have the right to keep and bear arms, I don’t know. But this is showing rather a lack of knowledge of what rights are.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)


"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."


So what do you make of this then?

I don't see anything here that needs addressed

Seeing what you just said previous I wonder how you cope with the contradiction.

Carry and conceal can be prevented. This is probably because carry is not necessarily protected by the RKBA. It is protected within keep arms only, as in a person has to be able to carry them at times in order to be able to buy and sell. The rest of carry isn't actually protected.

.

Um....no. Both are protected, specifically:


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.


Silly to argue that your right to own a gun is protected but your right to use it is not.


Note that there is some judicial movement towards Heller preventing an absolute prohibition of concealed carry:

Moore v. Madigan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I think you’re getting confused. The RKBA protects the right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in the militia. The use of the weapon is not about the 2A. Self defence is not a part of the 2A.

The argument is dodgy at best.


Self defence can be carried out in many different ways with many different items. Does that mean every item that can be used for self defence is protected?
No.


The 2A deals with the keeping of weapons. Protection of self defence is within the Bill of Rights but not directly specified.

Unless of course you think there’s a right to self defence with a gun and NOT a right to self defence with any other weapon, or no weapon at all. This clearly doesn’t make sense either.

Also carrying in certain places is never allowed, and still constitutional.

And this differs from time/place/manner restrictions on the right to free speech? Nothing earthshaking here.

This is hardly an argument.

Free speech is limited based on whether it is a danger or not.

Are you saying that gun carry is only limited when there is a danger? Er… guns are inherently dangerous in all situations.

Also, carry and conceal permits, are there free speech permits out there?

What weapons are protected?

Heller:

None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights 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.


Note that Heller expands Miller rather than limits it.

I love the term “lawful”, you know what it means? It means the US federal govt allows it. So if they ban handguns, handguns aren’t lawful, and if they ban the use of handguns, then using handguns isn’t a lawful purpose.

Not "dangerous and unusual weapons", the term dangerous is a little misleading and I think, as with quite of lot of this case, the justices were sloppy and were being more political than they should have been. What the mean are things like SAM, tanks, warplanes, nukes and so on. These are not protected. Why?

They are dangerous and unusual.

A handgun isn’t dangerous?

The simple answer is that the govt can't prevent people keeping arms, but it can prevent them keeping specific arms,

Yes -- those that are dangerous and unusual; those unsuitable for the traditionally lawful purposes one might have for a firearm.

Every class of firearm, however, is suitable for such purposes, and so the government cannot prevent ownership.

Er….

So an automatic machine gun can be used for “traditionally lawful purposes”? Like what exactly? We’re getting into the realm of vague things.

It prevents the US govt stopping individuals from owning arms. Ie, if an individual has a gun, they are armed, therefore the govt isn't stopping them from being armed.

"A gun"? As in just one? That limiting a person to one gun does not violate the constitution? You jest.

It also, BTW, prohibits anything else that might be an infringement.

Well not, it's not really what I'm saying.

Good -- because that would be no different than arguing that because you can still go to church on Sunday, prohibiting you from going Mon-Sat does not violate the constitution.

[/QUOTE]


Actually it isn’t the same. The prohibition on the govt is that it can’t stop and individual owning arms. That’s it. The limitation on this is quite low. What it means is vague but at the same time if you can own a weapons you can own it every day of the week. However I’d also say that limiting someone to one weapon wouldn’t cut it.

Though it does allow the govt the possibility of limiting weapons and the like.

The govt clearly can ban a type of gun for various reasons

Only those that are dangerous and unusual; only those unsuitable for the traditionally lawful purposes one might have for a firearm.

Every class of firearm, however, is suitable for such purposes, and so the government cannot prevent ownership.

Find me a gun that isn’t dangerous.

Actually the Supreme Court said the govt can prevent people from owning such weapons in their whole class.

It did not say the govt can’t ban other weapons.

You’re trying to make an argument out of a void.

The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun.

And to use, both protected specifically.

No, it’s just not there. The right is to own a weapon. Because you have the right to own it, you can use it for lawful purposes. Like I said, lawful means just that.

If you own a TV can you use it for lawful purposes?
Does this mean it’s protected by the 2A?

 

[Lakhota]

The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given point in time. Even a retard like Scalia knows that.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and noted that future limitations will have to be decided in future cases - NY Daily News

 

[Ernie S.]

you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.

firearms are weapons of violence not confined to their handlers, the community as a whole has a right to regulate them.

In exactly the same manner as it has a right to regulate speech -- to prohibit speech that harms others or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

How do you think this would apply to the right to arms?

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

as stated, to define what "Arms" refers to in the amendment -

all public firearms "Arms" to be leaver or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine, maximum six round capacity.

.

This is your brilliant restriction?

How do you justify that when you include the phrase that you so obviously want to ignore?

]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

its a definition -

there is no infringement against: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

.

Except that the 2nd Amendment makes no distinction what arms citizens have a right to keep and bear. Your limitation to bolt or lever actions with 6 round max capacity is an infringement.


in·fringe
verb \in-ˈfrinj\
: to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )

: to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

in·fringed in·fring·ing

Full Definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2
obsolete : defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>

 

[frigidweirdo]

Says he that will not provide information asked of him.

Oh stop pretending that you're the kid who thinks he's being clever by being stupid. You want to look, look, you don't, whatever.

Yes, they talk about keep and bear. However I also know that even Supreme Court justices aren't experts in all areas of law. They were listening to two arguments, the DC side was just completely wrong, so they listened to the Heller side. They didn't necessarily get all of the information on this debate.

You mean they did not get your opinion on the debate, or answer it in a manner consistent with same. Unfortunate for you.

You want "bear arms" to have a necessary relation to service in the militia. It doesn't.
Why? Because "the righto of the people" is not the same as "the right of the militia", and so the "right to bear" of the former is in no way necessarily limited by the "right to bear" of the latter.

You're arguing that the people that wrote the 2nd intended it to protect the right to a weapons so that you might, at the behest of the state, protect your town, state or country, to the total exclusion of any right to said arm for the protection of your house, family or person.

This position is utterly unsupportable by primary source material.

Do you think in two 30 minutes sessions (which weren't 30 minutes either) that they will get all the information, especially as it's coming from only two sides?

Oh, and thank you for telling me what I think. Only this ISN'T what I think. I don't think it has any relation to militia duty at all.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. You don't have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia. It's not essential.

Also, I'm not arguing that people can't use their weapons for self defence. This is getting a little frustrating. It's the usual not reading what I write but just assuming I'm saying the same damn thing everyone on the left is saying. I'M NOT.

I'm saying the 2A doesn't protect the right to self defence. That doesn't mean the right to self defence doesn't exist.
I'm saying the 2A protects the right to keep arms, not the right to use arms in self defence. I'm not saying a person can't use their weapons in self defence.
Self defence is protected, just somewhere else.

You can use your TV for self defence. This also doesn't mean the TV is protected by the 2A.

Got it? Or are you just going to assume I said something else?

You can ask questions if you are unsure of what I have said, I understand that concepts can be difficult. But what I will not tolerate is you telling me that I'm arguing something I clearly have not said. And you did it twice.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given point in time. Even a retard like Scalia knows that.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and noted that future limitations will have to be decided in future cases - NY Daily News

Also the 2A means what someone can convince the Supreme Court to say it is. ie, people can go to court and have the meaning changed. Which is why you can't just say "the Supreme Court said this therefore it is definitely this" because it can change.

 

[Lakhota]

The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given point in time. Even a retard like Scalia knows that.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and noted that future limitations will have to be decided in future cases - NY Daily News

Also the 2A means what someone can convince the Supreme Court to say it is. ie, people can go to court and have the meaning changed. Which is why you can't just say "the Supreme Court said this therefore it is definitely this" because it can change.

True, which is what I meant "at any given point in time". There is nothing "absolute" about the 2nd Amendment.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is your brilliant restriction?

How do you justify that when you include the phrase that you so obviously want to ignore?

]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

its a definition -

there is no infringement against: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

.[/QUOTE]
Except that the 2nd Amendment makes no distinction what arms citizens have a right to keep and bear. Your limitation to bolt or lever actions with 6 round max capacity is an infringement.


in·fringe
verb \in-ˈfrinj\
: to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )

: to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

in·fringed in·fring·ing

Full Definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2
obsolete : defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>[/QUOTE]

Only when it comes to rights, infringe means to stop someone. Many people are having their 2A rights infringed upon right now. Criminals, the insane, children and so on.

 

[Ernie S.]

This is your brilliant restriction?

How do you justify that when you include the phrase that you so obviously want to ignore?

]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

its a definition -

there is no infringement against: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

.

Except that the 2nd Amendment makes no distinction what arms citizens have a right to keep and bear. Your limitation to bolt or lever actions with 6 round max capacity is an infringement.


in·fringe
verb \in-ˈfrinj\
: to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )

: to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

in·fringed in·fring·ing

Full Definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2
obsolete : defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>[/QUOTE]

Only when it comes to rights, infringe means to stop someone. Many people are having their 2A rights infringed upon right now. Criminals, the insane, children and so on.[/QUOTE]
Rights are for citizens. Children have not matured to the point where they can be depended upon to exercise the right to vote OR carry a gun. The insane and the felonious have surrendered that right.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Rights are for citizens. Children have not matured to the point where they can be depended upon to exercise the right to vote OR carry a gun. The insane and the felonious have surrendered that right.

Children have limited rights.

The insane and felons still have the right, they haven't surrendered the right at all. They have had their right infringed upon through due process. It's as simple as that. That is the theory of rights. Rights can be infringed upon.

Even the Chinese are considered to have these rights, but they're just being infringed. Non-citizens have rights the same as citizens, it's a matter of whether the right is infringed for non-citizens or not.

 

[jon_berzerk]

you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.

firearms are weapons of violence not confined to their handlers, the community as a whole has a right to regulate them.

In exactly the same manner as it has a right to regulate speech -- to prohibit speech that harms others or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

How do you think this would apply to the right to arms?

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

as stated, to define what "Arms" refers to in the amendment -

all public firearms "Arms" to be leaver or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine, maximum six round capacity.

.

sure if they are in common use and useful to the military

 

[frigidweirdo]

sure if they are in common use and useful to the military

The whole point of the militia is the last line of defence. ie, when all else has failed you have the gun in the hands of people who join up the militia which has military leadership which then attempts to overthrow the bad regime.

If a weapon is "useful to the military" then it's probably not useful to the militia, unless they get lucky.

The whole point of arms in the hands of people is so that the govt doesn't have them, and the protection is there so the govt can't take them away.

 

[jon_berzerk]

sure if they are in common use and useful to the military

The whole point of the militia is the last line of defence. ie, when all else has failed you have the gun in the hands of people who join up the militia which has military leadership which then attempts to overthrow the bad regime.

If a weapon is "useful to the military" then it's probably not useful to the militia, unless they get lucky.

The whole point of arms in the hands of people is so that the govt doesn't have them, and the protection is there so the govt can't take them away.

If a weapon is "useful to the military" then it's probably not useful to the militia,

no offense but that is a pretty nutty thing to say

considering that the militia is military

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's what it says.
Yes, it’s what it says. And what? You have no opinion on this matter. You think it allows an unlimited right to keep arms and whatever you want bear to mean? Really?

As I have stated, the right to arms, like all oither rights has inherent limits.

You have a right to own and use a firearm, protected by the constitution. That doesnt mean laws against murder infringe on your right to own a use firearms because your right to same does not include the rightt to commit murder.

The state cannot infringe on the right -- it cannot place preconditions on the ecercise of the right not inherent to same, unless it can demonstrate that said precoindition is an effective, most narroly tailored and least restrictive means of achieving a demonstrably compelling state interest - primarily, in its role of portecting the rights of others.

And so, i'm not sure of your point here.

Not everyone has the right to arms, just as not everyone has the right to vote - so, no.

WOOOOW. You say not everyone has the right? Did I read that correctly?

Established fact. Not sure why you show surprise here.
Children do not have the right because theu have not reached the age of majority.
Felons do not have the right because it was removed through due process.
(insert numerous other examples here).
Just like the right to vote.

I don't see anything here that needs addressed

Seeing what you just said previous I wonder how you cope with the contradiction.

Maybe if you show a contraduction, I can address your wonderment.

I think you’re getting confused. The RKBA protects the right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in the militia. The use of the weapon is not about the 2A. Self defence is not a part of the 2A.

Why do you contiunually and deliberatly refuse to accept the fact that the 2nd protects a right to own and USE a firearm, both in its text - "keep and bear" and in its current jurisprudence - "and to use that arm"?

Self defence can be carried out in many different ways with many different items. Does that mean every item that can be used for self defence is protected? No.

Just those that constitute "arms".
I'm sure that the fact you can kill someone with a papercllip does not bring them under said term.

The 2A deals with the keeping of weapons.

And their use.

Free speech is limited based on whether it is a danger or not.

No... it is limited when it harms others and/or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
The exact same standard shoud apply to all rights - I'm sure you'd agree.

Also, carry and conceal permits, are there free speech permits out there?

You need a permit to have a parade or other significant demonstration that uses public propetry - so, yes

I love the term “lawful”, you know what it means?

Traditionally lawful. Distinct difference, made deliberatly.
As you havent addressed my response, and so I assume my response was acceptable.

It means the US federal govt allows it. So if they ban handguns, handguns aren’t lawful, and if they ban the use of handguns, then using handguns isn’t a lawful purpose.

You haven't read Heller?

The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster

Your response thusly falls flat on its face.

A handgun isn’t dangerous?

Dangerous AND unusual.
Clearly, handguns do not fall into this category (see above).
Feel free to deomonstrate than any other class of firearms does.

Er….
So an automatic machine gun can be used for “traditionally lawful purposes”? Like what exactly? We’re getting into the realm of vague things.

There's no reaon you cannot, with full efficacy, use a machinegun for any number of the traditionally lawful porposes one might have for a firearm - hunting, target shooting/competition, personal defense, home defense.
Can you demonstrate otherwise?

Actually it isn’t the same. The prohibition on the govt is that it can’t stop and individual owning arms. That’s it.

No, its not it. It cannot infringe (see above) on the ownership and use.

The limitation on this is quite low.

Please demonstrate this to be true.
Be sure to place this limitation in context with the protections afforded other rights and how they differ from the protections afforded by the 2nd.

Find me a gun that isn’t dangerous.

All weapons are dangerous, which is why the standard isn't "dangerous", and why "dangerouns" clearly designates something other than firearms, which are clearly protected.
Your response, therefore carries no meaning.

Actually the Supreme Court said the govt can prevent people from owning such weapons in their whole class.
It did not say the govt can’t ban other weapons.

Really. Please explain how Heller allows the government to ban weapons that are -not- dangerous and unusual but are suitable for traditionally lawful purposes. Be sure to cite the relevant parts of the text.

You’re trying to make an argument out of a void.

Irony alert.

No, it’s just not there. The right is to own a weapon.

Look, at this point, you're just lying.
The protection for the right to USE a protected weapon is specifically noted in both the amendment and the jurisprudence.
Keep AND bear
Own AND use

So, I'm not sure what your overall point here is, but whatever it is, your argument for it is, at best, lacking

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm saying the 2A doesn't protect the right to self defence...
I'm saying the 2A protects the right to keep arms, not the right to use arms in self defence.

:roll:
Based on what?
And why do you continue to refuse to include "and bear" in the protections afforded by the 2nd?