I never said it protected a "collective" right, but rather it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that is contingent on militia service. This isn't just something I made up, it's well understood among legal scholars, here is an excellent argument by Richard Posner, a legal scholar of the first order that all the standard model advocates around here seem to be very adept at ignoring.
Again, I repeat the request, find me one historian who supports the standard model.
If it was good history, there would be plenty.
"Wanted"...? By whom?
"Beneficial infringement"?
The right to arms is a fundamental right. As such, potential infringements upon it are put to a test of strict scrutiny - where, among other things, those who wish to limit the right must show that there isa "compelling state interest" in doing so -- in other words it has to be shown that the restriction in question is so necessary that the state cannot function without it.
It is impossible to make that case for any of the things you mentioned.
"I have commented on how I'd be more than happy to apply the arguments that allow for those Constitutional restrictions as a template for what restrictions would be allowable regarding the right to arms.
The question is - would you?
Whatever happened to the "well regulated" part?
Whatever happened to the "well regulated" part?
Indeed. That's the thing Penn and Teller leave out in that ubiquitous video. The second amendment is a conditional sentence: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The first clause, the militia clause, sets up the condition that must be met that cause the latter clause to be valid.
Unless we are to assume that the Framers wrote the militia clause for no reason, it clearly sets up a condition. The logical corollary is that the second amendment has no force if "a well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state." We don't need any militia today (the national guard is not an analogue), so based on the original intent the second amendment should be considered void. Thank God for activist Justices like Scalia.
Whatever happened to the "well regulated" part?
Yet people of the day did own artillery, private citizens owned cannons and the like which they likewise brought to the nation's defense. None of this was supplied by a national or even local military.
I don't think regulations on gun sales is unconstitutional. Making tanks and sniper rifles illegal for citizen position doesn't prevent someone from bearing arms. The Constitutional right is protected.
Indeed. That's the thing Penn and Teller leave out in that ubiquitous video. The second amendment is a conditional sentence: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The first clause, the militia clause, sets up the condition that must be met that cause the latter clause to be valid.
Unless we are to assume that the Framers wrote the militia clause for no reason, it clearly sets up a condition. The logical corollary is that the second amendment has no force if "a well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state." We don't need any militia today (the national guard is not an analogue), so based on the original intent the second amendment should be considered void. Thank God for activist Justices like Scalia.
Whatever happened to the "well regulated" part?
Just what do you think the term "well regulated" means? :lamo
Indeed. That's the thing Penn and Teller leave out in that ubiquitous video. The second amendment is a conditional sentence: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The first clause, the militia clause, sets up the condition that must be met that cause the latter clause to be valid.
I don't think regulations on gun sales is unconstitutional. Making tanks and sniper rifles illegal for citizen position doesn't prevent someone from bearing arms. The Constitutional right is protected.
It's not setting up a condition that must be met for the right to be active. The right is active. It's setting purpose to the right. It's in part a reminder to us all. A well regulated militia is a necessity to a free state. It's still true. So do your part and actively participate in militia duty.
What's hilarious is that he says "Funny how the standard model is only supported by some legal scholars and not any historians, huh?" -- when the historians who do support the Standard Model are often derided as not being legal scholars. Of course, if he actually had any idea what he's talking about, he'd have known that.
(Besides, it's like saying "sure, a few doctors claim that smoking causes cancer, but funny that no dentists do!" :lamo )
But there is no militia, it's been replaced by a standing military. Militia service as the founders knew it isn't even a possibility any more.
The second amendment doesn't say anything about a well regulated army, and the Founders had grave reservations about standing armies and the threat they posed to liberty (yet another concern of theirs that has no bearing on modernity).
I don't know how you can read the second amendment as anything other than a conditional sentence. Try diagramming it. It's grammatically a conditional. Let's just put any agenda aside for a second and be logical here.
But there is no militia, it's been replaced by a standing military. Militia service as the founders knew it isn't even a possibility any more.
I don't know how you can read the second amendment as anything other than a conditional sentence. Try diagramming it. It's grammatically a conditional. Let's just put any agenda aside for a second and be logical here.
Anticipating you;d say that, I asked you to:I never said it protected a "collective" right, but rather it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that is contingent on militia service.
that is stupid to lump a "sniper rifle" with a tank. do you have any clue what a sniper rifle is? did you know that Carlos Hathcock-one of the most celebrated Marine Snipers in history killed close to 100 enemy with a Winchester Model 70 in 30-06
do you know what one of the two most popular hunting rifles in the USA in the last 60 years is and what do you think is the most popular big game cartridge in the USA
Winchester 70 (along with the similar Remington 700) and 30-06
Do you know that GSgt Hathcock won the national target championship with that same set up?
Anticipating you;d say that, I asked you to:
Please cite any of the people involved in the writing and ratification of the 2nd that argued ... that to enjoy the protection of the 2nd, ones actions must be in direct relation to service in the militia.
Well?
You clearly dont understand what "strict scrutiny" means.There are plenty of restrictions that don't have to be as strict as you mentioned to be allowed.
No..... thats NOT the standard od scrutiny affordaded to fundamental rights. Thats "Rational basis" andis the least stringent of the three levels of scrutiny.As long as they are compelling to a point that their benefits outweigh their costs...
As I have said innumerable times:Perhaps the most basic, and reasonable, is a background check that restricts convicted felons from being able to buy guns.
That's nice... but doesnt change the fact that it creates a precondition of aright not inherent to same -- and thus, an infringement.I also don't mind licenses so we can keep track of who has a gun and who doesn't...
What a zinger! Way to destroy our position!Whatever happened to the "well regulated" part?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?