The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Seggy said:
The conviction people speak of the Constitution is my 'deal' here. Yes, we have all read it, we all may have read some wikipedia articles on it recently, or go have gone to a website that quotes the Constitution in a favorable way to what you believe. It would be me telling Derg how he needs to vote on his next contract. I have an idea what is being said in the contract, but I really don't know how it will pertain to him now, or down the road. Let him make the decision to be a 'scholar' of his own contract to make an analysis of it. Same concept with most people posting in this thread, unless you have advanced degrees in Constitutional law, you probably know 1% of what you think you know.

There are A LOT of laws in this country that aren't in the Constitution, but whereas the Constitution was used as a framework. I think a lot on here are overlooking that.

Finally, thank you for your service.
Click to expand...

But not really. It's a simple document, written so as to be accessible by Joseph Tri-Corner. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand how our system works, that's the way it's supposed to be. The constitution - the "HIGHEST" law of the land, simply says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's pretty black and white to me, and this sort of thing has been upheld time and time again.
 
John Stewart (oh, what's that I hear? The conservative's groaning?) touched on this the other day.

The actual wording of the Second deals with a "well regulated" militia. I've got no problem with that. In fact, I've got no problem with a well regulated militia having access to large caliber, fully automatic weapons. Hell, they can have tanks too for all I care, so when the day comes and the Federal Government comes a knocking with bad intentions (which may or may not ever actually happen) they can protect their State's rights. In fact, those groups kind of actually exist today in the form of National Guard units.

However... This argument isn't about that. This argument deals with individuals who are not regulated at all who want access to all those toys as well. Arguably, the vast majority of these individuals behave in the same responsible manner that a well regulated militia would as far as their weapons go, but not all do. Whether it be mental issues or pure stupidity, you have people who have guns and and no over sight and do not behave responsibly. And now, those that want the toys (and can actually handle the responsibility) are paranoid that the few with issues are going to wreck it for the rest of them and instead of making this issue about what it should be they are instead worrying that the government is going to come for their guns.
 
BobDDuck said:
John Stewart (oh, what's that I hear? The conservative's groaning?) touched on this the other day.

The actual wording of the Second deals with a "well regulated" militia. I've got no problem with that. In fact, I've got no problem with a well regulated militia having access to large caliber, fully automatic weapons. Hell, they can have tanks too for all I care, so when the day comes and the Federal Government comes a knocking with bad intentions (which may or may not ever actually happen) they can protect their State's rights. In fact, those groups kind of actually exist today in the form of National Guard units.

However... This argument isn't about that. This argument deals with individuals who are not regulated at all who want access to all those toys as well. Arguably, the vast majority of these individuals behave in the same responsible manner that a well regulated militia would as far as their weapons go, but not all do. Whether it be mental issues or pure stupidity, you have people who have guns and and no over sight and do not behave responsibly. And now, those that want the toys (and can actually handle the responsibility) are paranoid that the few with issues are going to wreck it for the rest of them and instead of making this issue about what it should be they are instead worrying that the government is going to come for their guns.
Click to expand...

Notice that the bill also says "the right of the PEOPLE...shall not be infringed." Whether it's a "militia" or a "militia of one," it doesn't matter, the premise is the same.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Yes, and in this case, that judicial review already took place. It's called D.C. v. Heller., in which the court struck down a gun ban.
Click to expand...

I agree, but that same ruling also said:
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.
Click to expand...

So while an all out ban of certain weapons was found unconstitutional, this bit seems to be very clear that other substantial regulation is constitutional. I am no lawyer, but this language appears to leave open a hole one could drive a bus through.
 
BobDDuck said:
John Stewart (oh, what's that I hear? The conservative's groaning?) touched on this the other day.

The actual wording of the Second deals with a "well regulated" militia. I've got no problem with that. In fact, I've got no problem with a well regulated militia having access to large caliber, fully automatic weapons. Hell, they can have tanks too for all I care, so when the day comes and the Federal Government comes a knocking with bad intentions (which may or may not ever actually happen) they can protect their State's rights. In fact, those groups kind of actually exist today in the form of National Guard units.

However... This argument isn't about that. This argument deals with individuals who are not regulated at all who want access to all those toys as well. Arguably, the vast majority of these individuals behave in the same responsible manner that a well regulated militia would as far as their weapons go, but not all do. Whether it be mental issues or pure stupidity, you have people who have guns and and no over sight and do not behave responsibly. And now, those that want the toys (and can actually handle the responsibility) are paranoid that the few with issues are going to wreck it for the rest of them and instead of making this issue about what it should be they are instead worrying that the government is going to come for their guns.
Click to expand...

Does no one read SCOTUS decisions? This has already been addressed. The 2nd Amendment is to be read as two separate statements. The first deals with a militia, which the Founders thought was important to keep around, because they generally despised the idea of a standing army. The second deals with the individual right to keep and bear arms, which is completely separate and apart from the "well regulated militia." It's all in D.C. v. Heller. Take a look.
 
Acadia said:
So while an all out ban of certain weapons was found unconstitutional, this bit seems to be very clear that other substantial regulation is constitutional. I am no lawyer, but this language appears to leave open a hole one could drive a bus through.
Click to expand...

Actually, it would seem to leave a very tiny hole, based upon the examples that they provided.
 
BobDDuck said:
The actual wording of the Second deals with a "well regulated" militia.
Click to expand...

From Heller:

The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The militia consisted of all males capable of acting together for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens’ militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

This interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights adopted in state constitutions immediately preceding and following the Second Amendment. Furthermore, the drafting history reveals three proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts, and legislators from ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s interpretation.
No precedent forecloses this interpretation.
Click to expand...
 
Acadia said:
So while an all out ban of certain weapons was found unconstitutional, this bit seems to be very clear that other substantial regulation is constitutional. I am no lawyer, but this language appears to leave open a hole one could drive a bus through.
Click to expand...
The court was basically approving the 1932 National Firearms Act that effectively outlawed fully automatic weapons.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Actually, it would seem to leave a very tiny hole, based upon the examples that they provided.
Click to expand...

You don't think upholding CCW bans is a large hole? Further, "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" leaves plenty of room future interpretation.
 
Acadia said:
You don't think upholding CCW bans is a large hole? Further, "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" leaves plenty of room future interpretation.
Click to expand...

Not when read with the rest of the decision. The "common use" explanation pretty much destroys any ability to ban a weapon beyond automatic weapons. As stated above, they basically just upheld the National Firearms Act. Granted, I personally think that's a violation of the 2nd Amendment, but I'm not on the SCOTUS, so I have to live with their ruling. Maybe some others should learn to live with it as well.
 
BobDDuck said:
John Stewart (oh, what's that I hear? The conservative's groaning?) touched on this the other day.

The actual wording of the Second deals with a "well regulated" militia. I've got no problem with that. In fact, I've got no problem with a well regulated militia having access to large caliber, fully automatic weapons. Hell, they can have tanks too for all I care, so when the day comes and the Federal Government comes a knocking with bad intentions (which may or may not ever actually happen) they can protect their State's rights. In fact, those groups kind of actually exist today in the form of National Guard units.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I brought this up a dozen pages ago, but was told I was wrong by the scholars.
 
ppragman said:
But not really. It's a simple document, written so as to be accessible by Joseph Tri-Corner. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand how our system works, that's the way it's supposed to be. The constitution - the "HIGHEST" law of the land, simply says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's pretty black and white to me, and this sort of thing has been upheld time and time again.
Click to expand...

It may seem like a 'simple' document, but if it is so 'black and white', why are their thousands of challenges to it every year?
 
Houston said:
I just happen to be reading the book Killing Kennedy. When I came to the part that discusses Oswald's old 6.5 mm bolt action Carcano rifle, I was struck by the comparison to today's emotion filled rush to ban "assault rifles." Later it was a .22 caliber Iver Johnson Cadet revolver that killed his brother Robert. It is the man, not the hardware, that does the killing. That is a fact conveniently ignored by those who support the administration's actions.

As the NRA said following their meeting with Joe Biden "“We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment,”
Click to expand...

I was going to "like" this post, but I just couldn't bring myself to "like" anything that included a reference to a book by Bill O'Reilly. ;)
 
brent p h said:
http://k2radio.com/wyoming-lawmakers-propose-gun-protection-legislation/

51301080-630x410.jpg




There is civil unrest growing across the country as well, the danger the people present to the government as an armed society is a clear and present danger to WA DC. One could think that this is the first step in a socialist government take over. This could take 50 years to accomplish but look at liberal position now, this started 60 years ago, there is a method to their madness. Rick Perry should follow suit with this legislation.
Click to expand...

I'm relatively certain that you're just a troll, but on the off chance that you're not, you may want to read a little thing called the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. States can't nullify federal laws on their own.
 
On the subject of the "well regulated militia" clause of the second amendment that reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ..." clause. Anti-gun people say that this indicates a "collective" or "community" right and that it is satisfied by the state National Guards, and would allow banning of guns owned by private individuals I would posit that:

1) Increased weapons for the "collective authority" (the government) and reduced weapons for the actual community (the people) does nothing to increase freedom and much to reduce it.
2) If it is a "collective right" then it is redundant because the government would never ban the government from owning weapons.
3) Well-regulated had a different meaning than in our modern vernacular. Well-regulated at the time the constitution was drafted meant training.

Further on the subject of what "the people" means in the clause that reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed":
1) If "the people" does not mean "all of the people" but instead means "the government of the people" then what about the other areas in the consitution that delineate rights of the people?
1a) Does the first amendment only protect the collective and not individual right of assembly or free expression? That is to say, our collective assembly could be said to be Congress -- is it lawful to outlaw all other types of assembly?
1b) Does the fourth amendment only protect the collective right and not individual right to be free of unreasonable search and seizures? If argued with the same justification anti-gun people argue the second amendment then it would protect the Department of Interior from search from the Department of Justice, but not individual persons.
1c) Do all the unlisted rights in the ninth and tenth amendments all apply only to the collective and not individual?
1d) In the seventeenth amendment that describes how Senators are to be elected by the people, does that mean that individual people should not have a part in the election and they should they be selected by the collective (government)?
2) If answers 1a - 1d are all No then how do you explain that it is only the second amendment where "the people" does not mean "all the people"?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Do wookies not read English? It seems to be the only rational explanation for why you still repeat this nonsense after everyone has pointed out the Heller decision to you.
Click to expand...

Yes Rambo, Wookies read English very well. If the Constitution was so 'black and white', then why are there THOUSANDS of cases a year challenging the Constitutionality of 'such and such'. I lived with law students for three years and the Constitutional Law classes are extremely complex and layered. If it was 'black and white', then why is jtrain609 spending a lot of time and money studying the Law surrounding the Constitution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top