What is so hard to understand?

[ladyliberal]

Ok. Please cite.


/discussion. See above.

I do not know what you want me to cite, what you want me to see, or what "/discussion" means. If you were to use complete sentences I believe it would assist me greatly.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ok. Please cite.


/discussion. See above.

I do not know what you want me to cite, what you want me to see, or what "/discussion" means. If you were to use complete sentences I believe it would assist me greatly.

Sigh.

Please cite your evidence that some of the framers did indeed say something that supports the notion thsat ther 2nd was intended to protect a collective right to the exclusion of the individual right.

/ discussion = end of discussion.
You admit that Madison's words are not part of the discussion of the intent of the 2nd amendment, and so are not evidence of any such intent. As such, you admit that your quote is not relevant to that end. Thus, end of discussion re: Madison, as you have presented him.

Beyond that, even it they -were- part of that discussion, they, as cited, do not in any way support the notion that the amendment was intended to protect an collective right to the exclusion of any individual right.

Summed up:
You have not provided any evidence that anyone concerned with the creation/ratification of the constitution or the 2nd held the position that the intent of the 2nd was to protect a collective right to the exclusion of any individual right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Except, of course, that -the- highest court ruled otherwie.

 

[ladyliberal]

Please cite your evidence that some of the framers did indeed say something that supports the notion thsat ther 2nd was intended to protect a collective right to the exclusion of the individual right.

/ discussion = end of discussion.
You admit that Madison's words are not part of the discussion of the intent of the 2nd amendment, and so are not evidence of any such intent. As such, you admit that your quote is not relevant to that end. Thus, end of discussion re: Madison, as you have presented him.

Beyond that, even it they -were- part of that discussion, they, as cited, do not in any way support the notion that the amendment was intended to protect an collective right to the exclusion of any individual right.

Summed up:
You have not provided any evidence that anyone concerned with the creation/ratification of the constitution or the 2nd held the position that the intent of the 2nd was to protect a collective right to the exclusion of any individual right.

Thank you. In light of your other comments, I will not interpret "end of discussion" to mean that you don't want me to reply.

Regarding your request to cite evidence, I am reluctant to do so. You have ignored most of the evidence I have already cited and summarily dismissed the rest.

Regarding your references to "Madison", I shall interpret them as referring to George Mason.

Regarding what you say I "admit", I'm unclear how you can honestly claim that I admit "Madison's" words "are not evidence of any such intent". I have argued just the opposite at considerable length. You evidently disagree with my position, but you go too far in denying that I have taken the position that I have.

As I have argued at length already, Mason's words do support (but not prove) the notion that he intended the second amendment to protect militias, and therefore not individual rights. Let me make another analogy:

Suppose there is a medication that is taken to relieve either fever or pain. Suppose that prior to taking it, I am heard to complain of a painful injury. Does not that complaint suggest (though not prove) that I did not have a fever? Similarly, Mason's words regarding the need to protect militias suggest that his remedy (the second amendment) was adopted for that purpose and not for another (such as to protect individual gun-owners).

I have provided the very evidence you deny. In addition to Mason's words, I have cited primary sources referenced by both sides in Heller.

 

[ladyliberal]

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

Except, of course, that -the- highest court ruled otherwie.

Certainly, the highest court ruled in Heller that there was an individual right to bear arms. Since this occurred many decades after Miller (which was the topic of discussion) it seems difficult to credit Miller with upholding that protection. Generations of Americans lived and died in the period between Miller and Heller, and the protections offered by Heller were denied them (or at least some of them, such as DC residents) even as Miller was the law of the land.

 

[jasonnfree]

The wording is kind of vague, and the right to bear arms is tied to militia. It's open to interpretation and the court of today may rule in favor of gun ownership, but a democrat heavy court may rule the opposite. I often wonder what the right wing needs all these guns for. Many of our jobs shipped to other countries, it won't be long before we're strip searched to board a plane, FBI can break in and confiscate you're stuff including computers, warrantless searches and wire tapping, it seems like the right to habeas corpus is permanently suspended. So when are you gun loving patriots going to rise up against all this tyranny?

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.

Great news.

Now I can finally buy me one of those nifty rocket launchers I need for home protection.

I might pick me up a few mortars, too, just in case.

Rd herring but then you knew that. Once again for the slow and stupid, assault rifles are EXACTLY what the Supreme Court has ruled are protected by the 2nd Amendment. While the Government may regulate what weapons are covered the Court has already spoken more then once on what is absolutely covered.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Perhaps I should explain what I meant by that statement then. It was in direct response to this:

Considering constitutional scholars nick-pick this issue, I would say its not quite so black and white.

And somehow, I accidently placed the statement under a quote from you so… I apologize, that was my mistake. All I was getting at is that stating ‘scholars’ muddled the issue so it is not clear without any argument whatsoever is meaningless and I don’t care what the so called scholars that were not cited have to say. Now, as you are constructing an argument, that is another case entirely. I did not mean for that statement to be directed at you.

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.

See above: I am not limiting myself to ‘non-scholarly’ arguments I actually agree with the bolded part also. The right sure is connected with the idea of militia’s and the ability to even form one in the first place BUT that does not preclude it from being a personal right instead of a collective right. In other words, the right to form a militia is simply nonexistent if there is no right to bear arms. In that context, there is a connection to the militia in the second but that in no way limits the right to a militia. It is still a personal right.

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.

No, but Heller is the case that applies in this argument and, as far as I know, Heller does specify that the right is individual and it overturned a ban on a specific type of weapon. In that light, weapons ARE protected by the second unless you want to argue that the ruling in Heller was incorrect. If no weapons are protected then what, in your opinion, is the point of the second amendment. If nothing is protected, then, by all rights, you can simply ban all guns and be done with it. Nothing is protected after all….


I would like to also point out the basic fallacy of claiming that there is some ‘collective’ right in the second. The founders were not interested in creating collective rights and I do not think there is a single example of such in the constitution. There is no such thing as a ‘collective’ right as the term is essentially meaningless. Each of the bill of rights are as follows:

1: protects the INDIVIDUAL right to assemble, practice religion and speak. Nowhere is there anything about ‘collective’ anything.
2: ill skip this as it is the one in question here
3: covers the INDIVIDUAL right to not be forced to quarter troops. Nothing in there concerning collective rights. YOU do not have to quarter troops.
4: The INDIVIDUAL right to your person and possetions against unreasonable searches and secures aka: your right to privacy. Again, YOU have this right reguardless of any collective.
5: The INDIVIDUAL right to a trial. Yet again, nothing concerning collectives. YOU have a right to a trial.
6: Connected to the fifth in your rights at a trial. Another INDIVIDUAL right that has no connections to any collective.
7: See the 6th. Same thing just pertaining to civil trials.
8: The INDIVIDUAL right to not be subject to cruel and unususal punishment or exsessive bail. More silence on any rights that do not belong to you but instead belong to an undefined collective.
9 & 10: deal with the fact that rights are not limited to what is written and that they are left to the states and the people.

The two articles that were not ratified ALSO did not mention anything about collective rights or rights that were not given to the people. They were, essentially, simple procedure bills dealing with the running of government.

There are no other examples of rights that are enumerated as a ‘collective’ right. There are no similar examples of this concept. To single out the second with this line of reasoning is a huge leap of logic IMHO that is completely dishonest. The founders were interested in protecting individual rights from the encroachment of the government and that was what the BOR was written for. It was NOT created to protect rights of the collective while leaving OUT the individual. If anything, the country has taken this idea EVEN FURTHER in incorporating amendments to apply to the states which was not the original intent at all. To then attempt to REMOVE a right of an individual in order to give it to a collective is, in my opinion, asinine.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Regarding your request to cite evidence, I am reluctant to do so. You have ignored most of the evidence I have already cited and summarily dismissed the rest.

On the contrary – the evidence I dismissed – your quote from Mason - was with obvious cause, in that it did not support the claim at hand for the reasons previously given, and re-noted below.

As for the remained of your evidence:

Even the majority opinion admits that this type of evidence exists. It notes (in a footnote on page 6) that various state constitutions used "the People" to refer to collective rather than individual rights. This usage, if applied to the second amendment of the federal Constitution, would certainly indicate that the right to bear arms could be tied to membership in a militia.

The ‘evidence’ you claim here is not relevant in that, so far as you have shown, state constitutions are not indicative of an intent regarding the amendments to the federal constitution by the people that wrote/ratified sais constitution/bill of rights -- if for no other reason, your evidence does not cite which of those people held this view, and that the viewpoint taken by the states in question should then be applied at the federal level.

Regarding what you say I "admit", I'm unclear how you can honestly claim that I admit "Madison's" words "are not evidence of any such intent".

You said they did not refer to the intent of the 2nd amendment:
“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”
As such, they cannot be used to support an argument regarding the intent of the 2nd amendment.

As I have argued at length already, Mason's words do support (but not prove) the notion that he intended the second amendment to protect militias, and therefore not individual rights.

Your quote:

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.

Nothing in his statement supports this, especially the idea that he intended the full exclusion of protection for the individual right – the quote is completely devoid of any commentary as to whose right would be protected by any amendment related to the protection of militia. As I said before, 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 to that, or any other end.

Thus, your quote from Mason fails to support the notion that the intent of the 2nd was to protect a collective right to the exclusion of an individual right -- and utterly so.

I have provided the very evidence you deny.

You have not, as shown,

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Except, of course, that -the- highest court ruled otherwie.

Certainly, the highest court ruled in Heller that there was an individual right to bear arms. Since this occurred many decades after Miller (which was the topic of discussion) it seems difficult to credit Miller with upholding that protection.

Other than the less-than subtle fact that Miller, an individual citizen w/ no relationship to the milita, was granted standing to invoke the 2nd in his defense, the case in no way cast any light on -who- might enjoy the protection of the 2nd amendment, only on what kind of weapons might be protected.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The wording is kind of vague, and the right to bear arms is tied to militia. It's open to interpretation and the court of today may rule in favor of gun ownership, but a democrat heavy court may rule the opposite.

The individual right was established and then affirmed by the court.
On what grounds will it be overturned?

 

[ladyliberal]

And somehow, I accidently placed the statement under a quote from you

Given my misunderstanding of the quote to which you were referring, much of my subsequent comments of course do not apply.

Heller is the case that applies in this argument and, as far as I know, Heller does specify that the right is individual and it overturned a ban on a specific type of weapon. In that light, weapons ARE protected by the second unless you want to argue that the ruling in Heller was incorrect. If no weapons are protected then what, in your opinion, is the point of the second amendment. If nothing is protected, then, by all rights, you can simply ban all guns and be done with it. Nothing is protected after all….

I agree that Heller is the controlling case today, but not that it applies to my argument, which was explicitly about Miller. Regarding Heller, I would be reluctant to call it "incorrect", but I certainly disagree with the majority opinion. I find the dissent more compelling, which holds that the second amendment's protection of the right to bear arms is limited to arms born in connection to military service.

I would like to also point out the basic fallacy of claiming that there is some ‘collective’ right in the second.

I would say that most if not all of the rights you discuss are both collective and individual. That churches and corporations (that is, collective entities) enjoy free speech rights suggest a collective component. And as Stevens points out, the right to assemble certainly has an inherently collective flavor. Stevens concludes that "the People" in the second amendment refers to a collective rather than to individuals, but his entire argument does not hinge on this. After all, even if we were to conclude that there was an individual right to bear arms, that would not preclude the possibility that it applied only to individuals who were in a regulated militia.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree with those who see a right to bear arms, i.e the right to defend oneself even against one's own rogue government, is a presumed unalienable right recognized by the Founders and the Constitution they gave us.

I can also see a reason to regulate weapons of mass destruction. I really would be uncomfortable knowing that my neighbor who gets drunk and disorderly almost every weekend is allowed to have a fully armed Bradley tank in his back yard. While I have no problem with ordinary citizens owning a tank, I do think there needs to be some regulation of things like that. Because the average citizen does not have the capability of securing and protecting a nuclear weapon, it should be very rare that the average citizen would be allowed to have one.

As for guns being a danger in the home more than a protection, history simply does not bear that out. Switzerland is at least one of the most heavily armed (by private citizenry) nation in the world, and gun crimes are very rare. U.S. states with the most guns in the hands of law abiding citizens have enjoyed violent crime rates coming down, most especially in those states allowing concealed carry.

It has some age on it now, but much/most of John R. Lott's research on gun ownership and gun crime remains true today:

Excerpt from an interview with Lott:

Question: Your argument about criminals and deterrence doesn't tell the whole story. Don't statistics show that most people are killed by someone they know?

Lott: You are referring to the often-cited statistic that 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances. However, what most people don't understand is that this "acquaintance murder" number also includes gang members killing other gang members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by customers they picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients, and so on. "Acquaintance" covers a wide range of relationships. The vast majority of murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens. Ninety percent of adult murderers have had criminal records as adults.
Interview with John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime

 

[M14 Shooter]

I can also see a reason to regulate weapons of mass destruction. I really would be uncomfortable knowing that my neighbor who gets drunk and disorderly almost every weekend is allowed to have a fully armed Bradley tank in his back yard.

Who argues that the 2nd covers these things?

 

[Foxfyre]

As for the notion that the modern warfare makes irrelevent a concept that an armed citizenry offers protection against a rogue or corrupt government that turns on the citizens. Such 'irrelevency' would depend on our citizen's military being willing to turn its guns on us, and I'm guessing that with few exceptions, it would not do that.

 

[Foxfyre]

I can also see a reason to regulate weapons of mass destruction. I really would be uncomfortable knowing that my neighbor who gets drunk and disorderly almost every weekend is allowed to have a fully armed Bradley tank in his back yard.

Who argues that the 2nd covers these things?

Those who wrote the Second Amendment had no notion that Bradley tanks or nuclear weapons would ever exist. But it does allow a concept of regulation nevertheless. My comments were addressed to those who seem to argue that there should be no regulation or restriction of any kind on the citizen owning whatever weapons he or she wishes to have.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I can also see a reason to regulate weapons of mass destruction. I really would be uncomfortable knowing that my neighbor who gets drunk and disorderly almost every weekend is allowed to have a fully armed Bradley tank in his back yard.

Who argues that the 2nd covers these things?

Those who wrote the Second Amendment had no notion that Bradley tanks or nuclear weapons would ever exist. But it does allow a concept of regulation nevertheless. My comments were addressed to those who seem to argue that there should be no regulation or restriction of any kind on the citizen owning whatever weapons he or she wishes to have.

Do you have a specific example of such a person, or...?

 

[Foxfyre]

Who argues that the 2nd covers these things?

Those who wrote the Second Amendment had no notion that Bradley tanks or nuclear weapons would ever exist. But it does allow a concept of regulation nevertheless. My comments were addressed to those who seem to argue that there should be no regulation or restriction of any kind on the citizen owning whatever weapons he or she wishes to have.

Do you have a specific example of such a person, or...?

I don't want to have to go back and hunt somebody up from other threads etc. So it is just a general observation and my assertion that I have debated this issue with people who think the Second Amendment gives all the power to the people and no power to government to regulate whatever armaments the people wish to have.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Those who wrote the Second Amendment had no notion that Bradley tanks or nuclear weapons would ever exist. But it does allow a concept of regulation nevertheless. My comments were addressed to those who seem to argue that there should be no regulation or restriction of any kind on the citizen owning whatever weapons he or she wishes to have.

Do you have a specific example of such a person, or...?

I don't want to have to go back and hunt somebody up from other threads etc. So it is just a general observation and my assertion that I have debated this issue with people who think the Second Amendment gives all the power to the people and no power to government to regulate whatever armaments the people wish to have.

You would then say that these people are few and far between and that most people do NOT argue that the 2nd protects whatever armaments the people wish to have - yes?

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you have a specific example of such a person, or...?

I don't want to have to go back and hunt somebody up from other threads etc. So it is just a general observation and my assertion that I have debated this issue with people who think the Second Amendment gives all the power to the people and no power to government to regulate whatever armaments the people wish to have.

You would then say that these people are few and far between and that most people do NOT argue that the 2nd protects whatever armaments the people wish to have - yes?

Radical extremists of all types are relatively uncommon and out of the mainstream. They generally get an extraordinary amount of the attention, however. And the only thing I have argued here is that Constitutional intent was to give the people an unalienable right to self defense, even against unlawful action of their own government should that become necessary; but that does not preclude the ability of government to regulate armaments.

 

[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?

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.


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.

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

Lawmakers have been whittling away at just about every right we have. Why should the 2nd amendment be any different?

I was being serious calling a AR15 a WMD. It is made for killing and isn't much good for anything else. Weapons that are even more destructive are available to just about anyone too. Holmes shot over 70 people, killing a dozen. If not for a malfunction, he probably would have killed or injured many more. Why should we entrust non LEO / military people with that kind of firepower?

I don't believe anybody has died from listening to Fox news or CNN or from having their cell phone conversations overheard, so I don't see how that compares.