HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » If the meaning of "r...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:04 PM

If the meaning of "regulated" must be based on the definitions when the Constitution was written,

then the weapons it protects should be what was available at that time.

can't have it both ways.

55 replies, 2586 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 55 replies Author Time Post
Reply If the meaning of "regulated" must be based on the definitions when the Constitution was written, (Original post)
elehhhhna Dec 2012 OP
Zoeisright Dec 2012 #1
roguevalley Dec 2012 #11
dipsydoodle Dec 2012 #2
CTyankee Dec 2012 #3
stevenleser Dec 2012 #16
ashling Dec 2012 #33
stevenleser Dec 2012 #39
CTyankee Dec 2012 #36
jody Dec 2012 #4
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #6
stevenleser Dec 2012 #17
jberryhill Dec 2012 #54
NightWatcher Dec 2012 #5
Bjorn Against Dec 2012 #7
dipsydoodle Dec 2012 #8
Mel Content Dec 2012 #52
moobu2 Dec 2012 #9
elehhhhna Dec 2012 #14
bongbong Dec 2012 #10
elehhhhna Dec 2012 #12
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #27
FarCenter Dec 2012 #13
white_wolf Dec 2012 #47
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #15
Logical Dec 2012 #18
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #19
elehhhhna Dec 2012 #21
backwoodsbob Dec 2012 #20
elehhhhna Dec 2012 #22
backwoodsbob Dec 2012 #23
elehhhhna Dec 2012 #24
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #26
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #25
JCMach1 Dec 2012 #30
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #44
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #28
elehhhhna Dec 2012 #34
TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #29
elehhhhna Dec 2012 #31
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #35
JCMach1 Dec 2012 #32
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #43
Mel Content Dec 2012 #50
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #53
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #37
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #40
Mel Content Dec 2012 #38
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #41
Mel Content Dec 2012 #45
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #46
Llewlladdwr Dec 2012 #48
Mel Content Dec 2012 #49
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #51
Llewlladdwr Dec 2012 #55
Codeine Dec 2012 #42

Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:06 PM

1. Exactly. Muskets only, gun nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:00 PM

11. scalia of all people probably agrees with you. If I remember right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:08 PM

2. I' m UK

A young American friend pointed that out to me 10 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:09 PM

3. Elsewhere I posted that one of the reasons that the new emerging democracies in the

world do not want to model their new constitutions on our constitution has got to be our outrageous Second Amendment. It strikes me that many of these new emerging nations have seen violence and gun violence in particular all around them every day and have no stomach for enshrining guns any further.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:03 AM

16. Technically, the Constitution does not contain any gun language. An amendment to it does. nt

o

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:10 AM

33. Technically, when an amendment

is ratified - through the process proscribed by the originally submitted and ratified document - it becomes a "full on" part of that document as if in the original version.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:09 AM

39. No, it doesnt become part of that document, but it is treated as Constitutional law. Its an

amendment, its not part of the original document.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:31 AM

36. Yes, I know, but it is in the context of our founders which to me makes it a part of

our foundational document. It is a result of the thinking of that day, perfectly understandable for its time, that simply cannot be applied to today without intense analysis as to what its meaning is in today's society. I think that is where the failure arises. There are other flaws that I see in our Constitution that makes it unworkable for today's emerging democracies, in particular its omission of women and women's rights (see, for example, the Constitution of South Africa which Justice Ginsburg has said COULD be a model for modern day democracies).

There was a NYT front page article on this subject this past year (not sure of the date but you could Google it) and Ginsburg got raked over the coals by the RW on her remarks but she was absolutely right IMO...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:11 PM

4. OK and all writing with quill pens, all speech without electronic aids, etc. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:14 PM

6. There are no Constitutional issues with writing implements, unlike weaponry.

Explain to us again why you consider yourself a Democrat? Because I have yet to see you support a liberal viewpoint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:04 AM

17. And if we want, laws could be passed or repealed easily regarding all those things. Not so with

something codified in the Constitution or an Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:43 AM

54. Go operate a radio transmitter without an FCC license.

...and let us know how that works out for ya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:13 PM

5. "Regulate" that shit. Make people jump through hoops, register....

limit sales to people who are in militias like the Army State National Guards...not the nuts in the woods with pot bellies and racist hatred. That is what they meant by well regulated militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:16 PM

7. Yes, it is idiotic to pretend the founders were writing about modern technology in the 18th century

The Constitution needs to be viewed in the context of the time period, there is absolutely zero evidence whatsoever that the founders thought everyone should be able to own the sorts of firearms that are available today. I don't think it is practical to ban guns, but I certainly think they should be much more heavily regulated.

The Second Amendment was written to protect muskets at a time when there was no military to speak of and they had just finished fighting a revolution. I support the second amendment but I view it in the context of the time it was written and recognize it was not written about current technology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:20 PM

8. Just wait until you've all got your own armed drones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:42 AM

52. funny how they used the word 'arms' and not muskets...

 

i was under the impression that the founders were smart enough to know that weapons, like all technology, evolves over time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:23 PM

9. That's a very valid argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:01 AM

14. thanks! stating the obvious is always a good argument, yanno?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:27 PM

10. Read Federalist Paper #29

 

And you'll find out exactly what "well-regulated" meant in those days.

A very eye-opening read, BTW. It also discusses the chaos that would ensue if there were willy-nilly gun ownership by untrained persons. Ironic, but prophetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:00 AM

12. Make that an OP and throw up a link. PLEASE?!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:51 AM

27. You know

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021986720

You are right.

I just forgot exactly which of the Federalist, and Heller did a number to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:01 AM

13. That would be Antonin Scalia's position? Strict textualism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:16 AM

47. Well Scalia likes to claim that position.

But he's quick to abandon it when it doesn't suit him. My professor refers to it as a "results driven jurisprudence."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:02 AM

15. Tax the SHIT out of gunpowder

 

Problem solved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:06 AM

18. I have seen you post this many times. Do you think a nut shooter would care about the money?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:08 AM

19. Yes, I do.

 

Thousands of dollars for a magazine of ammunition would go a long way to stopping the nutters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:22 AM

21. truefact. stops 'em from getting mental heath care.

why would this be any different?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:09 AM

20. then freedom of press only applies to hand printing presses? NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backwoodsbob (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:23 AM

22. really, bob? really?

you can't see the false analogy there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:35 AM

23. I understand...se my point

all day I've read that I am an accomplice to this simply because I own a gun...that I should be banned from DU for owning a gun,that I should be put in prison for owning a gun.

You get kind of defensive after a while.I'm probably just gonna leave DU over this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backwoodsbob (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:47 AM

24. bob, we own guns. plural.

no reason to feel defensive. don't you think this country could make some public policy improvements?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backwoodsbob (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:50 AM

26. Bob I am a gun owner

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:49 AM

25. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021986720

I ain't gonna rewrite it again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:04 AM

30. And here is Madison writing to Jefferson about the nature of the Bill of Rights

which includes (of course) the 2nd Amendment.

Here is Madison writing about the creation of the Bill of Rights... "...Supposing a bill of rights to be proper the articles which ought to compose it, admit of much discussion. I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided. The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public..."

Read more: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/james-madison-letter-to-thomas-jefferson-october-17-1788.html#ixzz2E5sN2g26


Got that gun nuts! The original intent was to keep it open to the will of the people!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCMach1 (Reply #30)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:35 PM

44. In my mind it is high time to recapture

Original intent from these fanatics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #28)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:12 AM

34. you rock nadin, thankyou

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:56 AM

29. The right to keep and bear arms is not conditioned on what is regulated

however it is defined it is an individual right. The well regulated militia is a rationale not a condition.

Also, I think the logic is sketchy anyway if it is an effort to discern original intent. Citizen and the military were essentially at parity on a one on one basis, this was not missed at the time I suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:07 AM

31. i suspected that

but WE get to define which arms are available -- like no drones or suitcasenukes, etc. More recently, no boxcutters on planes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Reply #31)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:13 AM

35. Not really, unless you follow the Constitution and due process.

You reading of 2A is flawed. The RKBA is stand alone; the militia clause is the central government's stated interest in that right for organizing the militia.

"Well regulated" referenced a citizen's duty to have at ready a firearm equivalent to a military infantry firearm, and the knowledge of how to use it.

"Arms" has, interestingly, more flexibility and room for interpretation than "press." Fortunately, the courts realize things change. Further, even before the Constitution's drafting thousands of soldiers were equipped with rifles as well as muskets. A few decades later, Lewis & Clark took a repeating air gun on their expeditions.

We now have computers to argue the meaning of "press."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:29 AM

32. See #25... nor was it intended to absolute

The will of the people should also play a role...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:08 PM

43. Read this, you are wrong

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021986720

And also go find federalist 29, just for starters.

But their meaning was very clear from practice at the time and letters and other documents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #43)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:39 AM

50. "federalist 29" is NOT the constitution or the bill of rights.

 

i thought you should know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mel Content (Reply #50)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:43 AM

53. It's just Hamilton's justification for it

And defense, under his pen name plubius, BEFORE IT WAS RATIFIED,

Of course it not relevant....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:39 AM

37. Fuck That...

No offense, but the constitution is a living document (hence the ability to amend it). At this moment, I could not give two shits what Alexander Hamilton or Thomas Jefferson may (or may not) have thought about whether AR-15's should be allowed in the hands of private citizens.

It's up to us, now and in this generation, to determine what freedoms and what privileges should be shared by the American people. You don't need to rummage through 200-year-old semantics to make a decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #37)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:57 AM

40. The problem is that the NRA tells you that the founders wanted

Every able American to be able to carry an AR15. Here is the point, they did...but not the way we are doing it. So we either change it (good luck with the repeal) or you want to driver right to Carry fans nuts? Sure you can, I have done this, when are you attending drill?.

What the founders wanted, and it has to do with their own fears of regulars is essentially universal conscription to the guard. You can have that, but guess what skippy, you are now part of the militia and we drill once a month. That was the requirement back then for gun owners, who were few and far between. The myth that they were wide spread is just that, a Hollywood myth. There were whole classes of people who could not own guns, and if they were out hunting, they did with papers of leave on them, kind of insurance, promissory note.

So damn straight, we want the right without the responsibility that the Founders implied. They would approve, of Switzerland, which has universal conscription and every male is issued his weapon when they go home, and remain in the reserves until 45, and drill every year.

Israel is also what they intended. It is the modern RKBA movement, praying to these dusty documents, that are clear in meaning, and courts, that have destroyed that.

So yes, we do need to talk of original intent, because it is not this mayhem. At the same time we must speak of rational gun control laws, and Fawke 'em

Oh and congress should go against the Court and pass a law essentially getting rid of the wrong headed Heller decision. Is this going to happen? Unicorns have a better chance to fart in the forest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:44 AM

38. the amendment doesn't REQUIRE a 'well regulated militia'...

 

it says because a well regulated militia is necessary from time to time, people need to be able to keep arms on hand.
AND- it says "arms" and NOT "muskets" for a reason- they knew that weapons continually change and evolve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mel Content (Reply #38)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:00 PM

41. Heller notwithstanding yes it does

You don't believe me? There are reams of documents written by those pesky founders that point to it. Start with Federalist 29.

You want you AR? Sure, like your counterparts all the way to before the civil war, you need to attend drill once a month.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:07 AM

45. the wording they chose for the amendment does not REQUIRE a well-regulated militia.

 

and it doesn't require gun owners to be a part of such militias, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mel Content (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:12 AM

46. Do you understand Dependent Clauses

And how they work in the English Language?

And do you know the social milieu of the emergence of the Second Amendment?

FYI, due to what hey did, the guard and the police are your modern day equivalents, both well regulated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:22 AM

48. Break it down for us then nadinbrzezinski.

Diagram this sentence out for us so that we can clearly see how membership in a militia is a requirement for an individual to exercise their second amendment rights.

'Cause I don't believe you can...In fact, I don't believe you'll even try....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:37 AM

49. what he said.

 

diagram the sentence for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:07 AM

55. Ummm..that's not a sentence diagram.

It's an interesting post, but it doesn' t diagram the 2nd Amendment out. I keep hoping someone can provide that. Thanks anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:07 PM

42. Similarly, our right to free speech and press should not apply to anything

printed on modern printing equipment or disseminated over the internet, as those clearly did not exist then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread