Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to worry?

[Harshaw]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

The 2nd Amendment states we have the right to bear arms. No interpretation of "arms" is extant. Therefore it's open to interpretation, as has been seen by the recent SCotUS decision.

In US v. Miller, the Court said that a weapon is protected if it has a reasonable relationship to use as a militia weapon. That's pretty much any military arm carried by a typical infantryman.

States may impose their own ban or laws of ownership on weapons. You realize that right?

Not according to the 2nd and 14th Amendments, they can't. Not Constitutionally, anyway.

No. YOU are declaring them "anti-freedom".

Their actions make them anti-freedom. It doesn't matter if I declare them so or not, any more than if I declare that gravity exists to make things fall to the ground. But I choose to.

In their minds eye you are "anti-freedom".

I don't care if in their mind's eye I'm a heffalump; my ownership of a gun doesn't impinge on their freedom in any conceivable way. They're the deluded ones.

Freedom from guns in the hands of those who are not able bodied male militia.

By federal law, every able-bodied male from the ages 17 to 45, and female officers of the National Guard, are members of the militia.

But this is nonsensical. "Freedom FROM guns." That's idiotic. It's like saying "freedom from having to read stupidity on a message board." Sure, some would think it would be nice, but it has noting to do with actual personal freedom and nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.

d00d, it's all about perspective and your demonizing those who disagree with you does little to foment open free dialog.

Those who would shred the Bill of Rights are anti-freedom. Deal with it.

No one said you couldn't state your opinion. But you'd rather have us, it appears, not be able to state our opinions in opposition -- according to you, to do so is "fascist."

 

[rsixing]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

In US v. Miller, the Court said that a weapon is protected if it has a reasonable relationship to use as a militia weapon. That's pretty much any military arm carried by a typical infantryman.

No. Your interpretation belies the Supreme Courts interpretation.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."
Printz v. United States (1997) (opinion by Scalia) (Thomas, concurring) Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.
Lewis v. United States (1980); Footnote 8 (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment).
Adams v. Williams (1972); (opinion by Rehnquist) The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."
"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." Id., at 178-179. Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia.

Atlanta Motel v. Unites States (1961); Footnote 11 ... cases in which the commerce power has been used to advance other ends not entirely commercial: e. g., ... United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (National Firearms Act);
Konigsberg v. State Bar (1961); Footnote 10 That view, which of course cannot be reconciled with the law relating to libel, slander, misrepresentation, obscenity, perjury, false advertising, solicitation of crime, complicity by encouragement, conspiracy, and the like, is said to be compelled by the fact that the commands of the First Amendment are stated in unqualified terms: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . . ." But as Mr. Justice Holmes once said: "[T]he provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth." Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604, 610. In this connection also compare the equally unqualified command of the Second Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And see United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174.

Not according to the 2nd and 14th Amendments, they can't. Not Constitutionally, anyway.

1886 decision, in Presser v. Illinois, says the 2nd Amendment is not binding on the states.

Their actions make them anti-freedom. It doesn't matter if I declare them so or not, any more than if I declare that gravity exists to make things fall to the ground. But I choose to.

I don't care if in their mind's eye I'm a heffalump; my ownership of a gun doesn't impinge on their freedom in any conceivable way. They're the deluded ones.

Do you realize your above arguments negate each other?

By federal law, every able-bodied male from the ages 17 to 45, and female officers of the National Guard, are members of the militia.

Proof?

But this is nonsensical. "Freedom FROM guns." That's idiotic. It's like saying "freedom from having to read stupidity on a message board." Sure, some would think it would be nice, but it has noting to do with actual personal freedom and nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.

Does their argument support a armed militia but not an armed populace? I don't know. Perhaps.

Those who would shred the Bill of Rights are anti-freedom. Deal with it.

The Bill of Rights, in particular the 2nd Amendment, has not been completely interpreted. I understand how those who support your position want to caste those who don't agree with your stand as "anti-freedom" but that in no way impeaches on their right to pursue their position on it. With that said you can proclaim them "anti-freedom" and actually have it mean something when a complete interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is finished and said interpretation supports your agenda, not theirs.

No one said you couldn't state your opinion. But you'd rather have us, it appears, not be able to state our opinions in opposition -- according to you, to do so is "fascist."

No. Fascism is telling others their opinion is wrong because it doesn't agree with yours and because of that you would limit their freedoms, their right to existence, etc. That's fascism.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

You spend alot of time arguing Rxising but you really never defend a position.

Tell us-what gun laws do you want in place and then establish what good they would advance


That the second amendment is not incorporated by the 14th is outcome based legalisms by some judges. There is absolutely no rational reason why the second amendment was/is not treated the same as the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth amendments.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

You spend alot of time arguing Rxising but you really never defend a position.

He has no interest in a honest discussion.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

No. Your interpretation belies the Supreme Courts interpretation.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."
Printz v. United States (1997) (opinion by Scalia) (Thomas, concurring) Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.
Lewis v. United States (1980); Footnote 8 (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment).
Adams v. Williams (1972); (opinion by Rehnquist) The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."
"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." Id., at 178-179. Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia.

Atlanta Motel v. Unites States (1961); Footnote 11 ... cases in which the commerce power has been used to advance other ends not entirely commercial: e. g., ... United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (National Firearms Act);
Konigsberg v. State Bar (1961); Footnote 10 That view, which of course cannot be reconciled with the law relating to libel, slander, misrepresentation, obscenity, perjury, false advertising, solicitation of crime, complicity by encouragement, conspiracy, and the like, is said to be compelled by the fact that the commands of the First Amendment are stated in unqualified terms: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . . ." But as Mr. Justice Holmes once said: "[T]he provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth." Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604, 610. In this connection also compare the equally unqualified command of the Second Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And see United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174.

Ummm . . . do you understand that your citations, and the text which you quoted, above supports what I said in your quotation of me?

1886 decision, in Presser v. Illinois, says the 2nd Amendment is not binding on the states.

And Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) says that segregation is OK.

Do you realize your above arguments negate each other?

Show how.

Proof?

10 U.S.C. 311

The Bill of Rights, in particular the 2nd Amendment, has not been completely interpreted. I understand how those who support your position want to caste those who don't agree with your stand as "anti-freedom" but that in no way impeaches on their right to pursue their position on it.

They seek to restrict or eliminate a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

No. Fascism is telling others their opinion is wrong because it doesn't agree with yours and because of that you would limit their freedoms, their right to existence, etc. That's fascism.

What you simply have no grasp of, apparently, is that you are doing exactly the same thing. Unless you think the pursuit of fascism has a place in a free society. Does it?

And note, for about the zillionth time . . . no one here is making any attempt or suggesting in any way that you shouldn't have the right to express your opinion.

 

[rsixing]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

constitution does not grant rights you know that right?

You sure you want to go there Rev?

Just one right guaranteed in the Constitution, off the top of my head, is the right to writ of Habeas Corpus. Need we continue?

 

[Goobieman]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

[the] constitution does not grant rights you know that right?

Just one right guaranteed in the Constitution, off the top of my head, is the right to writ of Habeas Corpus. Need we continue?

Apparently not, given that you do not understand the difference between 'granted' and 'guaranteed'.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

Apparently not, given that you do not understand the difference between 'granted' and 'guaranteed'.

Habeas was a common law writ-"the Great Writ" in English Law. Since the people had all rights they retained anything not delegated to the federal government.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Idiosyncracies

"Idiosyncracies"

is there a right to abortion? a right to health care? a right to gay marriage?
a right to free speech?

IMO or written into the Constitution and its Amendments?

Not really...

Negative And Positive Rights (ln)

Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another human being, or group of people, such as a state, usually in the form of abuse or coercion. A positive right is a right to be provided with something through the action of another person or the state. In theory a negative right proscribes or forbids certain actions, while a positive right prescribes or requires certain actions.

Belief in a distinction between positive and negative rights is usually maintained, or emphasised, by classical liberals and libertarians who believe that positive rights do not exist until they are created by contract.

The constitutions of most liberal democracies guarantee negative rights, but not all include positive rights.

constitution does not grant rights you know that right?

Nevertheless, positive rights are often guaranteed by other laws, and the majority of liberal democracies provide their citizens with publicly funded education, health care, social security and unemployment benefits.

Therefore:
Abortion is a negative right (negative right to disposition private property overriding a pending right of a citizen by birth).
Health care is a positive right.
Marriage (civil unions) is a negative right.
Registration of a civil contract for purposes of establishing a postive obligation between government and the public is a positive right.
Free speech is a negative right.


The following is absent from a consensus for positive and negative rights, although its stipulation is asserted by myself:

Negative rights may be equally protected.
Positive rights may not be equally endowed.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

You sure you want to go there Rev?

Just one right guaranteed in the Constitution, off the top of my head, is the right to writ of Habeas Corpus. Need we continue?

it recognizes rights it does not grant them, it restricts governments not people. so sure.

 

[rsixing]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

it recognizes rights it does not grant them, it restricts governments not people. so sure.

It guarantees them. I cede your point, at this time, as I reread your original and you did state "grant". My bad.

 

[rsixing]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

He has no interest in a honest discussion.

And your only interest is to assasinate my character by sniping ad hom's! From this point forward you are on ignore.

 

[rsixing]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

Ummm . . . do you understand that your citations, and the text which you quoted, above supports what I said in your quotation of me?

That very decision, in particular, seemed to support only allowing possession of arms in maintaining the militia. NOT so everyone can buy any weapon they want. I may be wrong but it would seem the SCotUS, at that time, emphasized weapons more for the militia then personal ownership.

And Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) says that segregation is OK.

Does that change the 1886 decision, in Presser v. Illinois, which states the 2nd Amendment is not binding on the states? No. You need to cede this point else you look disingenuous and evasive.

Show how.

You believe their words and actions are a threat to your rights. They believe your words and actions are a threat to their rights. Each claim negates the other.

In other words it shouldn't be a matter of personal opinion but a defined, codified interpretation of the 2nd Amendment one way or the other. At this point the 2nd is not fully interpreted (the SCotUS has stated so themselves) therefore "assault weapons" bans can be passed with impunity.

Don't you see? I mean, it's right in front of your eyes, all of you. Until such time as the 2nd is fully defined, completely codified, each administration has the potential of furthering their own agenda and as this potential arises each opposing agenda will foment fear, just as we see now, here, today. The right fomenting fear of the Obama administration and the potentiality of another weapons ban. "TO ARMS, TO ARMS. Obama is going to take our weapons! The evil left is going to inpugn our rights...AGAIN!!!! TO ARMS my countrymen, TO ARMS".

I'm sorry but it's ****ing hilarious in it's idiocy, this chicken little fear mongering but also, sadly, ridiculous looking in this over-arching, over-reacting, knee-jerk, nay-saying pervaying of doom "ain't takin my ****ing guns" rhetoric at the same time.

10 U.S.C. 311

Point.

They seek to restrict or eliminate a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Then why does the 2nd preface with "A well regulated militia..."? Regulated means nothing when it refers to you then...

What you simply have no grasp of, apparently, is that you are doing exactly the same thing. Unless you think the pursuit of fascism has a place in a free society. Does it?

And note, for about the zillionth time . . . no one here is making any attempt or suggesting in any way that you shouldn't have the right to express your opinion.

I have done nothing of the sort. I have not declared TD, you or any other extremist gun owner proponent, should be denied the opportunity to live in freedom because of the potential of your words or actions. I have not declared TD's, you or any other extremist gun owner proponent, existence should be questioned because of of the potential of your words or actions. I have not declared TD, you or any other extremist gun owner proponent, an enemy because of the potential of your actions or words. So like it or not my claim stands and I will not rescind it. End of statement.

 

[Ethereal]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

Does that change the 1886 decision, in Presser v. Illinois, which states the 2nd Amendment is not binding on the states?

No, it merely demonstrates the point that the SCOTUS is not always honest or objective in their interpretation of the law.

You believe their words and actions are a threat to your rights. They believe your words and actions are a threat to their rights. Each claim negates the other.

In other words it shouldn't be a matter of personal opinion but a defined, codified interpretation of the 2nd Amendment one way or the other. At this point the 2nd is not fully interpreted (the SCotUS has stated so themselves) therefore "assault weapons" bans can be passed with impunity.

Don't you see? I mean, it's right in front of your eyes, all of you. Until such time as the 2nd is fully defined, completely codified, each administration has the potential of furthering their own agenda and as this potential arises each opposing agenda will foment fear, just as we see now, here, today. The right fomenting fear of the Obama administration and the potentiality of another weapons ban. "TO ARMS, TO ARMS. Obama is going to take our weapons! The evil left is going to inpugn our rights...AGAIN!!!! TO ARMS my countrymen, TO ARMS".

I'm sorry but it's ****ing hilarious in it's idiocy, this chicken little fear mongering but also, sadly, ridiculous looking in this over-arching, over-reacting, knee-jerk, nay-saying pervaying of doom "ain't takin my ****ing guns" rhetoric at the same time.

I tried to discuss this earlier but perhaps you did not have the time or desire to respond. To restate, I do not understand how the exercise of a negative right (the right to keep and bear arms) can be construed in anyway to be an imposition or a threat to the rights of others. Can you please explain this as it is quite perplexing?

Also, I would challenge your assertion that the Second Amendment has yet to be defined. It was defined by virtue of its existence, as are all words and sentences of a plain and ordinary nature. Those who seek further "clarification" on the nature and intention of the Second Amendment are being willfully dishonest or ignorant.

Then why does the 2nd preface with "A well regulated militia..."? Regulated means nothing when it refers to you then...

The word "regulated" within the context of the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with government restrictions or regulations as this would contradict the terminology later used within the operative clause (shall not be infringed). Regulated was to mean well-disciplined, organized, or trained.

I have done nothing of the sort. I have not declared TD, you or any other extremist gun owner proponent, should be denied the opportunity to live in freedom because of the potential of your words or actions. I have not declared TD's, you or any other extremist gun owner proponent, existence should be questioned because of of the potential of your words or actions. I have not declared TD, you or any other extremist gun owner proponent, an enemy because of the potential of your actions or words. So like it or not my claim stands and I will not rescind it. End of statement.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

Of all the idiotic things I have encountered in studying the second amendment for more than three decades, nothing quite approaches the claims some ARC members make that "well regulated" is the verse that empowers the federal government to control small arms. For anyone to say that a phrase in the BILL OF RIGHTS serves to limit rights and to empower the government permanently and completely disbars that claimant from ever having any credibility when it comes to the topic of constitutional law.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

Of all the idiotic things I have encountered in studying the second amendment for more than three decades, nothing quite approaches the claims some ARC members make that "well regulated" is the verse that empowers the federal government to control small arms. For anyone to say that a phrase in the BILL OF RIGHTS serves to limit rights and to empower the government permanently and completely disbars that claimant from ever having any credibility when it comes to the topic of constitutional law.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.


Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

 

[rsixing]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

No, it merely demonstrates the point that the SCOTUS is not always honest or objective in their interpretation of the law.

The same can be said of those who wish to only accept THEIR interpretation of, oh, let's say the 2nd Amendment and would castigate any other who disagrees with them. Like those who disagree with our resident GOA's don't deserve their freedom! Their existence to be questioned! Maligned as enemy! In so many words threatened with death!

I tried to discuss this earlier but perhaps you did not have the time or desire to respond. To restate, I do not understand how the exercise of a negative right (the right to keep and bear arms) can be construed in anyway to be an imposition or a threat to the rights of others. Can you please explain this as it is quite perplexing?

As has been pointed out to me you only need look beyond the 2nd Amendment alone, the 1st, 4th, 14th, etc. and within lies your answer.

Also, I would challenge your assertion that the Second Amendment has yet to be defined. It was defined by virtue of its existence, as are all words and sentences of a plain and ordinary nature. Those who seek further "clarification" on the nature and intention of the Second Amendment are being willfully dishonest or ignorant.

If that were the case then older writings would not need to be interpreted. For instance the Holy Bible would not need theologians to interpret it. The quatrains of Nostradamus(sic) would not need interpreted. Simply put the verbiage used in the 18th century does not translate, clearly and concisely into todays understanding or usage of the same text. Even today something as simple as a comma can change the very intent of a passage. As is the case within the 2nd Amendment itself.

With that said I am not willfully dishonest, nor ignorant. Your attempt to buttress your argument by ad hom does little to change the fact that we have an honest disagreement and will do nothing to change my argument. As it were.

The word "regulated" within the context of the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with government restrictions or regulations as this would contradict the terminology later used within the operative clause (shall not be infringed). Regulated was to mean well-disciplined, organized, or trained.

I asked the question. I am looking for answers. So then, to further discuss this premise; how are population general, as defined by 10 U.S.C. 311, the very 'militia' you are referencing regulated if without guidance of the gov't?

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

So any word or action is acceptable if it's claimed to be done in the defense of liberty. I see.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

So tell us xrising-what do you think the Second Amendment means.

My interpretation is that the federal government has not the power to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms by citizens of the USA. By arms I take that to mean individual infantry weapons.

My position is further bolstered by the fact that there is no language in the main document delegating the power to restrict the possession of arms to the Federal government.

Have at it.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

So tell us xrising-what do you think the Second Amendment means.

My interpretation is that the federal government has not the power to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms by citizens of the USA. By arms I take that to mean individual infantry weapons.

My position is further bolstered by the fact that there is no language in the main document delegating the power to restrict the possession of arms to the Federal government.

Have at it.

I will go further.


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.



A militia in good working order is formed by the citizenry.

In order to have this "Well Regulated Militia", you can not prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.




If we prohibited them from doing so, there would be no pool of people to form a militia, or if we did form it, it would not be in good working order as they would not be proficient in the use of arms.


Shall not be infringed means just that. That the peoples rights can not be restricted.

 

[Ethereal]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

The same can be said of those who wish to only accept THEIR interpretation of, oh, let's say the 2nd Amendment and would castigate any other who disagrees with them.

So, you admit that an appeal to the decisions of the SCOTUS are not always valid?

Like those who disagree with our resident GOA's don't deserve their freedom! Their existance to be questioned! Maligned as enemy! In so many words threatened with death!

I'm not sure where I've advocated such a thing, but I can empathize with the general sentiment that those who foment opposition to liberty in a free society should be viewed with a measure of caution.

As has been pointed out to me you only need look beyond the 2nd Amendment alone, the 1st, 4th, 14th, etc. and within lies your answer.

I'm not sure what you're alluding to. Could you please elaborate? Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. A negative right obliges or requires the inaction of a second party on behalf of the first party (free speech, keep and bear arms), so my question is how can the first party - which merely obliges or requires the inaction of a second party - be imposing their opinion on others? If I am standing in a public park talking peaceably about the machinations of government and you come along and stick a sock in my mouth would it be an imposition if I were to take issue with your infringement of my rights? If I pulled the sock out and said, "stop violating my rights" how could you then say, "stop imposing on me"?

If that were the case then older writings would not need to be interpreted. For instance the Holy Bible would not need theologians to interpret it.

Except that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic.

The quatrains of Nostrodomus(sic) would not need interpreted. Simply put the verbage used in the 18th century does not translate, clearly and concisely into todays understanding or usage of the same text. Even today something as simple as a comma can change the very intent of a passage. As is the case within the 2nd Amendment itself.

With that said I am not willfully dishonest, nor ignorant. Your attempt to buttress your argument by ad hom does little to change the fact that we have an honest disagreement and will do nothing to change my position. As it were.

So, you admit that your mind cannot be changed? What's the point of engaging in a debate if nothing will convince you that you might be mistaken or incorrect? Should you provide me with a sound and logical explaination as to why I'm incorrect then I would be inclined to change my mind, but I digress...

You have not provided a logical explaination as to why further clarification is necessary in regards to the Second Amendment. It uses plain and ordinary English words (all of which are still in use today) and in instances of a contextual inquiry we can reference the writings of the Founding Fathers or dictionaries respective to that time period. After over 200 years I thought someone would have figured out what it means by now. Of course, anyone can see what it means simply by reading it but those with an agenda that does not coincide with the intended meaning of the Second Amendment must engage in exotic legalese and semantics in order to rationalize their position.

I asked the question. I am looking for answers. So then, to further discuss this premise; how are population general, as defined by 10 U.S.C. 311, the very 'militia' you are referencing regulated if without guidance of the gov't?

Well, first of all, I think TurtleDude provided a very concise and logical explaination as to why a conferment of governmental authority would have no place in the Bill of Rights, and secondly, your question makes more sense if we view it in its original context:

"...you are referencing [organized] if without guidance of the government?"

They are organized or regulated by virtue of choosing to keep and bear arms. They are in a state of readiness by virtue of this exercise. Ready to assume the defense of their life, liberty, and property. So, in this regard no direction or guidance is required of the government.

So any word or action is acceptable if it's claimed to be done in the defense of liberty. I see.

Is that what I said? No, it isn't. Extremism does not equate to "any word or action". It seems you have a penchant for creatively interpretting the plain and ordinary meaning of words.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

I will go further.


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.



A militia in good working order is formed by the citizenry.

In order to have this "Well Regulated Militia", you can not prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.




If we prohibited them from doing so, there would be no pool of people to form a militia, or if we did form it, it would not be in good working order as they would not be proficient in the use of arms.


Shall not be infringed means just that. That the peoples rights can not be restricted.

Right you are- if people were called to the muster without having arms or prior experience with them, the militia could not be well regulated. It would be akin to a coach forming a football team the night before the opening game from people who had never played football or trained in the sport.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

Of course, the question I've always wondered is . . .

What's "liberal" about banning guns? As in, why do most "liberals" favor it?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

Of course, the question I've always wondered is . . .

What's "liberal" about banning guns? As in, why do most "liberals" favor it?

Anything that makes a person less dependent on the government is anathema to a "liberal"

 

[rsixing]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

So, you admit that an appeal to the decisions of the SCOTUS are not always valid?

Certainly. Just as appealing to an individual opinion, even one held by many, is not always valid. But then such circular reasoning, as above, is not cogent to the original point. THAT individual states can enforce their own regulatory laws when it comes to weapons.

I'm not sure where I've advocated such a thing, but I can empathize with the general sentiment that those who foment opposition to liberty in a free society should be viewed with a measure of caution.

Just as those who foment rebellion against a democratically elected administration should be viewed with a measure of caution.

I'm not sure what you're alluding to. Could you please elaborate? Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. A negative right obliges or requires the inaction of a second party on behalf of the first party (free speech, keep and bear arms), so my question is how can the first party - which merely obliges or requires the inaction of a second party - be imposing their opinion on others? If I am standing in a public park talking peaceably about the machinations of government and you come along and stick a sock in my mouth would it be an imposition if I were to take issue with your infringement of my rights? If I pulled the sock out and said, "stop violating my rights" how could you then say, "stop imposing on me"?

Your rights end where my nose begins.

Except that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic.

And Nostradamus' quatrains were written in French. And the Constitution and its Amendments were written in colonial English. The words, as we all are aware, do not necessarily translate to todays understanding of the words nor the original intent of these words. That's why we have the SCotUS and their attempts to interpret these Amendments.

So, you admit that your mind cannot be changed? What's the point of engaging in a debate if nothing will convince you that you might be mistaken or incorrect? Should you provide me with a sound and logical explanation as to why I'm incorrect then I would be inclined to change my mind, but I digress...

What I stated was your ad hom's would do nothing to change my argument. And such are many of the arguments I read around here particularly from the right when someone will not acquiesce to their argument.

You have not provided a logical explaination as to why further clarification is necessary in regards to the Second Amendment. It uses plain and ordinary English words (all of which are still in use today) and in instances of a contextual inquiry we can reference the writings of the Founding Fathers or dictionaries respective to that time period. After over 200 years I thought someone would have figured out what it means by now. Of course, anyone can see what it means simply by reading it but those with an agenda that does not coincide with the intended meaning of the Second Amendment must engage in exotic legalese and semantics in order to rationalize their position.

Your points are cogent but then IF indeed no clarification were needed in regards to the 2nd Amendment we wouldn't be having this debate would we. Either your position would be proved, infallibly, or another position would be proved.

Well, first of all, I think TurtleDude provided a very concise and logical explaination as to why a conferment of governmental authority would have no place in the Bill of Rights, and secondly, your question makes more sense if we view it in its original context:

"...you are referencing [organized] if without guidance of the government?"

They are organized or regulated by virtue of choosing to keep and bear arms. They are in a state of readiness by virtue of this exercise. Ready to assume the defense of their life, liberty, and property. So, in this regard no direction or guidance is required of the government.

Then my question to you is do you own weapons solely for the purpose of response as a member of a militia or is your agenda more you own weapons simply because you want to? Methinks it's the latter.

Is that what I said? No, it isn't. Extremism does not equate to "any word or action". It seems you have a penchant for creatively interpretting the plain and ordinary meaning of words.

So you see how the meaning of ones words can be misinterpreted. Even when written in plain English. Thank you.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Are the anti-2nd amendment people lying when they say that there is nothing to wo

I am still waiting for you to provide your interpretation of the second amendment xrising. Actually serving in the militia is not a necessary requirement to exercise a right that pre-exists the second amendment and the constitution. Remember, the document itself did not delegate the federal government the power to ban or regulate arms.