HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The 2nd Amendment was NOT...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:01 AM

The 2nd Amendment was NOT written "to protect us from our gov't," FFS...

And I'm getting beaucoup weary of hearing that BS.

If you don't understand the full historical and political context of the second amendment, go and learn before you shoot your mouth off about it being a way of allowing us to "protect ourselves from our own government."

The Revolution was over when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were adopted and ratified. The individuals charged with creating an infrastructure that would allow a newly-independent nation formed of disparate ex-colonies to retain that independence, recognized the pragmatic necessity of empowering a citizen military for defense of the newly-formed nation.

We had mustered out the Revolutionary Army and sent almost everyone home. We had bupkus in the way of standing military forces and bupkus in the way of resources to recruit, train, and maintain such forces. Having had experience with such forces being used to keep uppity colonials in line, we didn't want to go that route in peacetime.

We also had a bunch of ex-colonies who (frankly) didn't think much of each other, weren't really sure they agreed, and didn't much want to cohere if it meant giving up what they thought was the correct way to live & govern themselves in favor of what those other assholes thought was a good idea.

The second amendment was a way of ensuring that should England, Spain or France decide we were a soft target, we as citizens could mobilize an effective response quickly, by having militias available. And since the government couldn't afford to arm or equip those militias, it would be important to ensure that able-bodied potential militia members were able to keep their weapons handy, and that no state would opt out of having a cadre of potential recruits available by restricting people from owning weapons, as was common practice among the major superpowers of the era, who DID have standing armies.

It was a practical measure to ensure we all had the right to defend ourselves and our new nation against anyone who might want to grab back or assert control over any of our sovereign territory. That's why it starts with the words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

It's also important to remember that the Bill of Rights represented two key concepts essential to the building of our nation: 1) The establishment of common ground among some very disparate colonial cultures and beliefs; and 2) the assurance that our central government would protect that common ground for all citizens regardless of which state they lived in.

Most of those protections were aimed, not at protecting citizens of the new nation from their own central government, but from the encroachments of STATE governments, which had different traditions and practices regarding which powers were appropriate for them to exercise over their citizens. It was a way of saying, "In every state in America, you have these rights. You don't need to worry, if you move from Virginia to New York, that the Governor of New York might decide to quarter troops in your home or appoint a gigantic unpayable bail if you're accused of an offense. You don't need to worry, if you're a Catholic from Maryland, that the Protestants in Virginia are going to be able to restrict your access to public office based on your faith."

If you look at the the entire Bill of Rights in the context of a new nation struggling to weld together diverse notions and traditions about self-government, and at the same time empower themselves to stay viable as a nation, the second amendment makes sense.

In a very real sense, the spirit of the second amendment is best exemplified in the modern era by retaining ultimate civilian control over our military establishment, and by ensuring all citizens equal access to service in the armed forces. We now have a standing military force, but it remains, in essence, a citizen military, controlled by civilian elected representatives, and comprised of all citizens regardless of gender, ethnicity, religious belief, state of residence, etc. We still have militias, in the form of national guard units, available for immediate response and our states are empowered to train and arm those militias.

These are the real spirit of the second amendment, not the paranoid nutnicks hoarding canned goods and wearing camo and muttering about the President setting up FEMA camps and conspiring to take their gunz away.

wearily,
Bright



172 replies, 28436 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 172 replies Author Time Post
Reply The 2nd Amendment was NOT written "to protect us from our gov't," FFS... (Original post)
TygrBright Dec 2012 OP
graham4anything Dec 2012 #1
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #2
TygrBright Dec 2012 #6
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #13
TygrBright Dec 2012 #15
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #16
blackspade Dec 2012 #22
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #47
blackspade Dec 2012 #61
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #78
JVS Dec 2012 #90
blackspade Dec 2012 #116
blackspade Dec 2012 #99
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #102
blackspade Dec 2012 #114
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #118
blackspade Dec 2012 #132
AldoLeopold Dec 2012 #151
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #121
blackspade Dec 2012 #133
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #134
blackspade Dec 2012 #136
ruxpin Dec 2012 #145
COLGATE4 Dec 2012 #38
brush Dec 2012 #68
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #80
pangaia Dec 2012 #148
AldoLeopold Dec 2012 #152
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #72
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #81
X_Digger Dec 2012 #141
AldoLeopold Dec 2012 #153
oldhippie Dec 2012 #113
DeschutesRiver Dec 2012 #172
white_wolf Dec 2012 #91
ruxpin Dec 2012 #144
cheapdate Dec 2012 #103
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #111
cheapdate Dec 2012 #112
caseymoz Dec 2012 #155
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #165
caseymoz Dec 2012 #150
jberryhill Dec 2012 #126
caseymoz Dec 2012 #158
jberryhill Dec 2012 #159
caseymoz Dec 2012 #160
jberryhill Dec 2012 #161
caseymoz Dec 2012 #164
jberryhill Dec 2012 #167
caseymoz Dec 2012 #169
jberryhill Dec 2012 #171
naaman fletcher Dec 2012 #140
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #166
naaman fletcher Dec 2012 #168
cali Dec 2012 #8
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #27
baldguy Dec 2012 #43
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #93
ruxpin Dec 2012 #146
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #49
baldguy Dec 2012 #69
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #76
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #105
zappaman Dec 2012 #83
renie408 Dec 2012 #67
jberryhill Dec 2012 #130
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #70
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #82
Brainstormy Dec 2012 #74
cheapdate Dec 2012 #98
tahoelewis Dec 2012 #129
jberryhill Dec 2012 #131
ruxpin Dec 2012 #147
jeff47 Dec 2012 #135
samsingh Dec 2012 #156
freshwest Dec 2012 #3
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #4
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #28
Kennah Dec 2012 #5
TygrBright Dec 2012 #7
Kennah Dec 2012 #9
TygrBright Dec 2012 #10
Kennah Dec 2012 #11
TygrBright Dec 2012 #12
Kennah Dec 2012 #14
SCVDem Dec 2012 #17
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #29
Hugabear Dec 2012 #37
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #40
ElbarDee Dec 2012 #42
brush Dec 2012 #115
bobclark86 Dec 2012 #124
A HERETIC I AM Dec 2012 #39
SCVDem Dec 2012 #64
glowing Dec 2012 #18
fasttense Dec 2012 #19
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #30
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #50
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #51
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #54
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #60
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #77
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #85
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #86
oldhippie Dec 2012 #120
cheapdate Dec 2012 #110
Botany Dec 2012 #20
A HERETIC I AM Dec 2012 #44
blackspade Dec 2012 #21
1-Old-Man Dec 2012 #23
ProfessorGAC Dec 2012 #25
Champion Jack Dec 2012 #33
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #55
OleDogg1945 Dec 2012 #125
ProfessorGAC Dec 2012 #24
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #26
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #57
X_Digger Dec 2012 #142
JGug1 Dec 2012 #31
A HERETIC I AM Dec 2012 #48
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #56
treestar Dec 2012 #58
Lex Dec 2012 #66
frank380 Dec 2012 #32
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #71
frank380 Dec 2012 #108
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #117
Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #127
Old and In the Way Dec 2012 #34
marble falls Dec 2012 #35
jody Dec 2012 #36
TransitJohn Dec 2012 #41
Progressive dog Dec 2012 #45
creeksneakers2 Dec 2012 #92
Motown_Johnny Dec 2012 #46
drm604 Dec 2012 #52
Trillo Dec 2012 #73
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #101
treestar Dec 2012 #53
moondust Dec 2012 #59
Romulox Dec 2012 #62
The Midway Rebel Dec 2012 #63
LittleBlue Dec 2012 #65
napkinz Dec 2012 #75
mzmolly Dec 2012 #79
Lint Head Dec 2012 #84
MsPithy Dec 2012 #87
Amonester Dec 2012 #95
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #88
NMDemDist2 Dec 2012 #97
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #89
sulphurdunn Dec 2012 #94
ProSense Dec 2012 #96
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #100
otohara Dec 2012 #106
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #107
libdem4life Dec 2012 #104
Lurker Deluxe Dec 2012 #162
libdem4life Dec 2012 #163
amandabeech Dec 2012 #109
moondust Dec 2012 #119
Dems to Win Dec 2012 #122
Android3.14 Dec 2012 #123
Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #128
Android3.14 Dec 2012 #137
reeds2012 Dec 2012 #138
SoCalDem Dec 2012 #139
jeanmarc Dec 2012 #143
guardian Dec 2012 #149
tblue Dec 2012 #154
rtracey Dec 2012 #157
GoingUnder Dec 2012 #170

Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:17 AM

1. Damn right. We must reframe the gun issue and deal with it harsly as a terror instrument

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:31 AM

2. I say this as politely as I can -- the entire OP is factually mistaken

I don't think you are a bad person. I think you somehow actually believe this stuff, so please allow yourself to be educated on the topic.

The 2nd Amd was written as a limitation on the federal government, and only the federal government.

Its only effect is that the federal government could not ban gun ownership.

If gun ownership was in service of a federal function then there would have been no need or wish for the 2nd Amd. (Think it through.)


It does not require anyone to have a gun. It does not mandate state militias. I limits the federal government's ability to regulate arms. Period.


This sentence may the the least correct thing I have read this week:

Most of those protections were aimed, not at protecting citizens of the new nation from their own central government, but from the encroachments of STATE governments,


Before the 14th Amendment not one word of the bill of rights applied to the states. This is not opinion. It is fact.

It would be more effective to talk about the way the world is different than in the 1780s than to simply invent false history about what the world was like in the 1780s.

The 2nd Amd is a weird relic, but it was most assuredly crafted to secure the state's/people's rights against the federal government.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:28 AM

6. Well, a good many years of historical and Constitutional scholarship don't necessarily...

...constitute an "education," so I will meekly accept your exhortation to "be educated" on the topic, and will study some more. (Gee, what a sacrifice... !)

Your observations do highlight a deficiency in the OP, and I definitely did not adequately emphasize this: The major purpose of the Constitution was to weld together disparate former colonies. The former colonies had largely conceived of themselves as self-governing in the wake of the Revolution, and the establishment of a central government was threatening. The Constitution, by clearly delineating the structure and responsibilities of the Federal government, and the Bill of Rights, by clearly enumerating various limitations on the Federal government's authority, was a way of reconciling the self-governing former colonies to the authority of the central government.

Nevertheless, if you look at the very specific "charters of rights" and "declarations of rights" made by the various colonial governments in the run up to the Revolution, and to the documents and memoranda submitted by the newly-formed state governments in respect to the Constitutional convention, it is abundantly clear that the specific rights enumerated in the Bill represent both the common ground of liberties demanded, AND the obligation of the Federal government to ensure that those liberties not be abridged.

You cannot divorce the Bill of Rights from the Constitution. The Constitution creates the powers of the central government and the authority of the Federal Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in precedence over the states' authority. That is, where the Constitution speaks, it guarantees the rights of all citizens of the nation.

The restrictions in the Bill of Rights were never intended to apply only to the Federal Government. No state is permitted to set unreasonable bail, to quarter troops on the populace, to restrict freedom of speech, etc.

The framing of the Bill of Rights as limitations on federal power was intended to reassure states and citizens that the federal government would a) not infringe on the rights of citizens in these areas, AND b) not infringe on the rights of states to govern in areas not specifically restricted by the Constitution (see: Amendment 10.) In essence, this is to say that freedom of assembly and petition may not be denied by the federal government and, therefore, also not by state or local governments, but that since the Constitution says bupkus about how states will elect their state governments, that will be up to the states.

Nor did I state anywhere in the OP that the intent of the second amendment was to mandate anyone to have a gun or to mandate state militias-- merely that no governmental entity could restrict the ownership and maintenance of the weapons necessary for a well-regulated militia. No citizen is required to participate in a militia, no state is required to maintain a militia. Merely, no government may impede the functioning of a well-regulated militia by prohibiting the ownership and maintenance of the weapons required for such a militia.

The entire Constitution of the United States of America applies, and has always applied from the moment of it's final ratification, to every American state. No state is permitted to enact laws or regulations that are unconstitutional, such laws and regulations are not valid. That's how the multiple jurisdictions of our government cascade in authority to weld together many into one.

And a critical issue for that welding together and maintaining the integrity of the newly-formed nation was our right to defend our existence as a nation, by ensuring that a well-regulated militia may exist to ensure the security of the nation.

We have the right to defend our nation with a well-regulated militia. No jurisdiction of government may impede or abrogate this right, nor restrict us as citizens from participating in such a militia and owning and maintaining the weapons required for such service.

We also have the right to think and say wackjob shit about black helicopters and FEMA concentration camps, and the right to skulk around in camo in the woods and drink beer with our fellow wackjobs, but that's protected by the FIRST amendment, not by the second amendment, and that right does not necessarily include the right to accumulate a huge arsenal of unregulated weapons that have nothing to do with defending our national sovereignty via a well-regulated militia.

specifically,
Bright

P.S. I don't claim to be the final authority on this, Constitutional scholars have been arguing about it for centuries and will continue to do so. But I do maintain that it is an interpretation well-grounded in historical context, Constitutional semantics, and legal, social, and economic traditions of representative democracy: at least as much as, if not more so than, the absolutist "GUNZ GUNZ GUNZ and MOAR GUNZ for anybody and everybody and the damn gummint can't do damn thing about it" interpretation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:03 AM

13. Your education was to no avail

The restrictions in the Bill of Rights were never intended to apply only to the Federal Government.


A "good many years of historical and Constitutional scholarship" notwithstanding, prior to the incorporation of the 14th Amendment the bill of rights limited only the Federal Government.

Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government.

The OP is based on a fundemental error, and the erroneous history promulgated is something imagined from that error.

The reason the fairly recent Supreme Court ruling finding (with which I strongly disagree) finding a personal right in the 2nd Amendment was such a big deal was that as an individual right, like speech and religion, it was subject to incorporation. (The right to own a gun was the hold-out in the long process of incorporation.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:17 AM

15. The Constitution (of which the Bill of Rights is a part)...

...has always applied to every jurisdiction that is part of the United States of America.

sleepily,
Bright

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:27 AM

16. Oh, FFS...

We are not **arguing** because the point is not debatable. I am not interested in discussing with you what you imagine to be the case. I am informing you of FACT.




(The OP will not likely do this, but anyone reading this who thinks the bill of rights limited the states should disabuse themselves of the error as quickly as possible, and reading anything about the incorporation of the bills of rights while be useful. "Incorporation" Most important Constitutional thing of the last 120 years. Google "incorporation bill rights" It's easy.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:01 AM

22. The point is absolutely debatable.

Your opinion is just that.
You are informing everyone of you opinion based on your interpretation of the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:51 AM

47. I'll try all caps... IT IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION

Q: Did the Bill of Rights apply to the States
A: No.

This is a FACTUAL question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #47)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:34 AM

61. Again, that is your opinion.

You are suffering from intellectual failure.
Yelling and snark does not equal fact.

If you care to post actual facts rather than your interpretation of them I'll be willing to look them over, but until that happens your repetition of your opinion holds no weight with me and I suspect many others here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #61)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:18 PM

78. It remains a fact whether you know it or not

You seem to think that 2+2=4 is my opinion.

Given that, I don't see that it makes any difference what you think.

There are 50 states, also.

And water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen.

All opinion.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #78)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:37 PM

90. This is how we get global warming and evolution debates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Reply #90)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:36 PM

116. Um, yeah.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #78)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:27 PM

99. And you refuse to provide DATA....

to back up your statement.
Until then you are shooting your mouth off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #99)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:34 PM

102. type: incorporation bill rights into the Google search box top-right of this page

Select "web search"

Hit "Search!" button.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #102)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:35 PM

114. I did actually.

But incorporation only applies to the 14th amendment onward.
That does not in any way settle the issue as to what were the original expressions, limitations, and supremacy of the BOR over the states. The fact that it took until 1833 to 'settle' what you call an original 'fact' of the BOR underscores the vacillation of the federal court in its imposition of constitutional clauses over the states.
This is the origin of 'Brights thesis about the original intention of the BOR by it's writers.
How later courts interpreted and implemented the BOR has obviously varied depending on the era.
If you look up Federalism in that Google box it will explain all of this to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #114)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:52 PM

118. Okay. So you are now *willfully* ignorant.

Awesome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #118)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:14 AM

132. Awesome indeed.

You make me laugh.

The fact that you are so hell bent on ramming down my throat was not settled constitutional law until 1833.
I believe that I have conceded the point that from 1833 to 1925 that you are correct in saying that the BOR did not, for all practical purposes, apply to the states.
However, before 1833 that was not the case. There were numerous cases up to 1833 showing the vacillation of the SCOTUS on this very issue.

L8R




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #78)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:30 AM

151. Try this

Get on the bus or get off.

Your choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #61)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:20 PM

121. actually, that the bill of rights applied only to the federal gov't originally is a matter of fact,

 

not opinion.

little respect for the 'constitutional studies' of anyone who doesn't acknowledge that basic fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #121)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:17 AM

133. As I pointed out...

You are correct in this statement between 1833 and 1925.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #133)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:00 AM

134. fail

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #134)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:34 AM

136. ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #61)


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:32 AM

38. Arguing legal issues with a non-lawyer

is a lot like trying to teach a pig to sing. You don't get anywhere and it just annoys the pig.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:47 AM

68. Hey, you two . . .

. . . stop arguing. Seems you both feel that the 2nd Amendment is used (and is misinterpreted) by many gun nuts, to justify having a home arsenal . . . the whole "well regulated militia" thing. I think you both agree that that clause is long outdated as we have a standing army now, the National Guard and state and local police even so we don't need every Tom, Dick and Crazy armed to the teeth and waiting to blow away some intruder, or thinking they can someday overthrow an overreaching federal government. I say restrict "killing weapons", hand gun and automatic weapons, to the police and military. The public can get their gun joneses satisfied if they want with "hunting/sporting weapons", rifles and shotguns. I say let's get it done quickly because even kids are getting slaughtered now. These incidents used to be years apart now they're happening once or twice a week now (the Oregon mall one, the football player one, the Newton elementary school one and the Alabama hospital one). Until we do something we'll all be holding our breath and dreading WHEN'S THE NEXT ONE GOING TO HAPPEN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #68)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:21 PM

80. No thanks. I'll continue to stand for truth over lies

I am not writing here to ban guns or not ban guns.

I am stating something about the history of law in the USA, and will not start believing imaginary nonsense in order to promote building a bigger opinion army.

What would such an army stand for, having already embraced delusion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #80)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:22 PM

148. Why do you find it necessary to insult everyone and call them stupid and liars?

IF you are right and you feel no one listens to you, why not just drop the whole thing. Just let those who do not agree with you remain 'delusional,' if that is what you think they are. That is fine. You will never convince them. You can also lessen your anger at them.

But IF you are wrong, then you have made a fool of yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #80)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:32 AM

152. It doesn't matter

Your history of law means nothing compared to the lives of children.

Get on the bus or get off.

Let me say it again.

Get on the bus or get off.

Choose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:15 PM

72. IMO, there is only one thing worse than ignorance, and that is WILLFUL ignorance.

Some people get so attached to their opinions that they REFUSE to accept facts that contradict their opinion.

You are 100% correct in your assertion about the Constitution and BoR. It is literally stupefying to see such willful ignorance in action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #72)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:33 PM

81. It is amazing

Anyone can google "incorporation bill rights" in seconds.

Some people don't want to, because on some level they suspect it would probably not end well.

So instead just keep saying, "That is your opinion."

Dude, in some deep philosophical way everything is just my opinion, but in some more normal, useful way, when I forward your complaint to Wikipedia my work is done. Take it up with them. Request the page be edited.

Wikipedia, and every legal textbook, and pretty much every source in the world, may be wrong. It is, indeed, possible.

Every 19th century SCOTUS decision way have been the opposite of what he thinki it was... who knows? Some conspiracy, whatever.

But it isn't my job to prove the reality of the world to every person I speak to.

So they can just switch to "that is just wikipedia's opinion, as well of the opinion of every legal textbook, etc." and we're good.

Or ask a lawyer. Or read a book... something other than deducing reality entirely from one's own emotional state, wishes, etc..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #81)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:05 PM

141. You are a better person than me.

In the face of such willful ignorance, I don't think I would have been quite so nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #81)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:34 AM

153. Get on the fucking bus or get off

Are you on the bus or not?

Will you fight to control and restrict the access of firearms in this country or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #72)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:20 PM

113. It goes to show .......

 

that ..."Well, a good many years of historical and Constitutional scholarship don't necessarily constitute an education" is true.

The OP's position is historical revision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #72)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:58 AM

172. You just said what I've been thinking as I am reading this exchange. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:42 PM

91. That is simply false.

Prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Reply #15)


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:40 PM

103. It is not nearly as simple as that.

As one of the authors of the Bill of Rights, Madison came to believe that it ought to be applied against the states as well as against the national government. He was joined in this belief by many people, including (for self-interested reasons) property owners. The question first went to the Supreme Court in 1833 in Barron v. Baltimore -- which ruled that the Bill of Rights applied only against the national government. But the question has remained contentious and has been litigated ever since. It's still not entirely settled and may never be. But with the 14th amendment and Hugo Black's subsequent interpretation of it -- I believe it's essentially settled in the minds of most Americans.

But my point is that it was never as unequivocal as you suggest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cheapdate (Reply #103)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:15 PM

111. As American law

As American law the BoR did not, in fact, apply to the states.

And the states that ratified the thing seem to have understood that just fine.

And even Madison did, circa 1791.

However one slices it, Before the 14th Amendment it was continuously the state of the law in the United States of America that the limitations on the federal government that we call the Bill of Rights did not apply to sate government.

Whether that is equivocal or not is kind of a judgment made by the reader.


There was always discussion and disagreement as to whether it should also apply to the states, but not so much about whether it did.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #111)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:19 PM

112. The fact that it even went to the Supreme Court in 1833

is clear evidence that it was an unsettled question before then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #111)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:40 AM

155. Wrong, and that's settled in the Constitution's own words.


See #150. Refer to the US Constitution, Article 6, Section 2

The only thing in dispute was whether the Federal Government had the strength to enforce its laws and principles on the states, despite the fact that the states had ratified the Constitution, which directly declared the Federal Government had that authority.

The Civil War wasn't made over principle. It was made over power. States were always bound by the Bill of Rights, in theory. In fact, the Federal government gave the states a lot of latitude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #155)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:39 PM

165. Flat wrong

Sorry, this is willful ignorance.

You cannot read up on the topic, however glancingly, without finding that the BoR did not apply to the states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:28 AM

150. Wrong. And there's not even any doubt about this.

Article VI, Section 2 reads as follows:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."


This article is unamended. It reads exactly the same now as it did when the Constitution was adopted. It's extremely clear. Everything in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights was made apply to the states from the very beginning. Period. That last clause is probably the most unambiguous one in the document. It cannot be read any other way. No State Constitution and no state law is supreme to the Federal Constitution and all laws and treaties made under it, and every judge in every state is supposed to be bound to the Federal Constitution and federal law first and foremost.

If this was disputed leading up to the Civil War, it was because the Federal Government wasn't perceived as strong enough to enforce this. The principle of Federal supremacy over the States wasn't even questionable. The Southern states had no principle to stand on, they just believed they could weasel out of the deal.

Why do people, including Justices, pretend this section doesn't exist? They have their own agendas, and I'm sure the Constitutional debates and Federalist Papers give them a variety of opinions with which to obfuscate, hedge, and give the states latitude. However, this doesn't change the way this section reads. In a straight conflict with the Federal government, the states had to yield, and that was always expected.

However, when Conservative judges call themselves constructionists, they are bullshitting. If they were strict constructionists, states rights would not even be called states rights. It would be called state jurisdiction.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:48 PM

126. I have to agree with Cthulhu here, you make a profound error

"The restrictions in the Bill of Rights were never intended to apply only to the Federal Government."

No. We fought a civil war to get to that point. Prior to the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights was understood to apply solely to the federal government.

Now, most states had similar provisions, but it is not until after the 14th that the Bill of Rights is understood to apply to the states.

This DOES have an interesting connection with the Second Amendment, in that the point was to preserve the state militias, as the federal government was not understood to have a standing army.

The Second Amendment became an anachronism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #126)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:29 AM

158. See #150, and Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution.


Article VI, Section 2 reads as follows:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

It's spelled out there, and it's not even ambiguous. There was never any doubt: if the federal government had the power to enforce it, that federal authority superseded state authority. The South only thought it could weasel out of the terms, calculating that the Federal government did not have the power to enforce it.

It was federal power, not federal authority, that was in doubt.

So why would it need be implied in the 14th Amendment? Because some states apparently didn't get the message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #158)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:38 AM

159. Not only is it not "spelled out there"


....but you are making the same logical loop error I noted elsewhere in the thread. If you say "it is the supreme law of the land" with the understanding that it only applies to the federal government, you haven't actually made any inroad to saying that it applies to states. That is precisely why it is not "implied" in the 14th Amendment, but expressly stated in the 14th Amendment.

You can certainly say, "well I think this language in the Constitution means X", but your personal interpretation doesn't trump some 200 years of interpretation and application by the Supreme Court. ANY course in Constitutional Law covers the history of this question quite well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #159)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:45 PM

160. Why clarify the state/fed relationship with this clause, then?

". . . and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Why would the Framers put that in?

I'll clarify this: I'm not talking about how it got fucked up later as states tried to weasel out of it and as the federal government had to compromise. I'm talking about what they meant when they wrote it, later case law notwithstanding. Considering how many compromises had to go into writing the Constitution, this section is very clear.

And I'm not saying later case law should be ignored, but it's spelled out in black and white how the Constitution was meant to to apply to the states when it was written, and would have been if the Constitution hadn't also given the Federal government the contrary task of accommodating slavery.

Maybe, just to make sure you understood, I should have said "reiterated in the 14th" Amendment rather than "implied," or perhaps, "very strongly implied," but I didn't think it would be so hard to go from one to the other. A reiteration is, after all, a very strong implication.

And reiteration was necessary, because some states had missed the meaning the first time, and because slavery made the Bill of Rights ambiguous for enforcement over the States. If the federal government hadn't tried to accommodate slavery, there would have been no doubt. In other words, if the most glaring flaw in the Constitution wouldn't have been there, nobody would have tried to hedge on the meaning of Article VI, Section 2.

And for "loop" error you refer to, I don't believe other posters cited Article 6 a counterargument. How can you parse the word "Land" to mean everyplace except the states? The states were practically the entirety of the settled land. Do you even notice that error? If "land" doesn't mean "states," it doesn't mean anywhere. And then there's the word "supreme": It can't be supreme and restricted.

And here's the other absurdity, how can federal government declare enforcement on the states in the 14th amendment if it never had the right to declare that power to begin with? I don't make my assertions out of ignorance of Constitutional history, I make them because there's no other honest, logically sound interpretation that can fit.

I'm not talking about case law, I'm not talking about anything else but those words. If there's ambiguity in Article VI, Section 2, find it. Describe it to me. Because I don't see it. No matter what was done later, how could it be read any other way?

I'll agree absurdities about the Bill of Rights not applying to the states were asserted over it later. They are now popularly believed, but if these absurdities are treated as the bedrock truth, the Constitution is invalid, because that's the main section that describes the relationship of federal and state power. It doesn't have the phrase "separation of powers," by the way.

Case law is just another opinion. It might be an opinion informed by the opinions of previous generations. More importantly, it happens to be the opinion of the powers that be at the time the cases were ruled. Because it's an opinion, however, I can give my contrary opinion, whether it's the enacted one or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #160)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:00 PM

161. "Case law is just another opinion"


Then, fine, it means whatever you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #161)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:36 PM

164. Glad we can agree in a limited way.


Really, if case law had anything to do with precedent in deciding whether the Bill of Rights applied to the states, the precedent would have started and stopped with Article VI, Section 2. What came after was just compromise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #164)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:02 PM

167. But your opinion is not historical fact

We know what were the opinions prior to the 14th Amendment, and your opinion was not it.

Orly Taitz is of the opinion that the courts can invalidate a president.

As long as each of you is not purporting to assert historical fact or actual law, that's fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #167)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:40 PM

169. How can opinion take precedence over a written article?

The 14th Amendment was written about 75 years after the Constitution.

How are we basing our knowledge of that opinion? By what those guys wrote down. Therefore, how does that better inform us of intent the intent 75 years before when Article VI, Section 2?

If that article didn't inform them, then I have to ask why? As I pointed out, it looks unambiguous. Apparently, it was qualified by the 10th Amendment, but notably, the 10th amendment didn't alter the wording of Article VI, Section 2.

Again, it comes back to slavery. The biggest mistake in the Constitution. It was such a violation of the Bill of Rights that, in practice, the federal government couldn't press the point. It had to compromise for 70 years. Therefore, there was a disconnect between what was written in the Constitution and what people were used to doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #169)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:20 AM

171. When it is signed by a majority of the Supreme Court

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:51 PM

140. Where did you go to school?

 

I want to make sure my kids don't go there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #140)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:43 PM

166. Consider the preceding 100 replies in this thread

and you should get a sense that you are mistaken, which is no crime.

A lot of people have the erroneous idea that because the BoR (mostly) applies to states today it always did. I didn't learn otherwise until I was in my mid-20s, at least. That common impression is, however, false.

Not opinion. Factually false.


Jberryhill is a smart guy and a lawyer. Read his replies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #166)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:58 PM

168. maybe I replied to the wrong person...

 

I thought I was taking the side that it didn't apply before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:29 AM

8. thanks. You are so right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:34 AM

27. Excellent post. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:48 AM

43. And - say this as politely as I can - you're full of shit.

Spouting fascist RW NRA lies in a polite way doesn't make them any less fascist, or any less RW, or any less NRA, or any less untrue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #43)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:53 PM

93. Then why not get off your butt

and start telling every law school in the US, and every publisher of legal texts, and every state and federal court to stop spouting these fascist RW NRA lies?

This isn't group therapy. We are not here to help you deal with your delusions.

You are utterly wrong... mistaken, incorrect... on a question of fact, not opinion.

It happens. We have all been there, though we don't always put the pie into our own face quite as dramatically as telling people they are full of shit fascists or whatever for the heinous crime of having learned true things.

I would suggest you look into the factual question, satisfy yourself that you are wrong, and go forward a little humbler but much better informed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #43)


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:53 AM

49. Actually, I say it as politely as I can

You are wrong.

The second has a series of dependent clauses, you remember school English? I guess you don't.

If you owned an infantry weapon, the Kentucky riffle, you reported for drill once a month. This even started before 1776. It was part of the social contract.

These militias also served as constabulary by the way.

So you want an sks, congrats soldier, here is your drill schedule...or join the police department.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #49)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:49 AM

69. They want military firepower without the military discipline & civilian control that goes with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #69)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:17 PM

76. Yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #69)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:45 PM

105. They disregard that whole "well regulated" piece of it. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #49)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:40 PM

83. "you remember school English? I guess you don't."

Pot meet kettle.]
Are you going to lecture us on "riffles" again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:43 AM

67. What about the Supremacy Clause?

Article VI, Clause 2 pretty much says that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Wouldn't that mean that the Bill of Rights supersedes state laws automatically? Just because the Supreme Court heard cases that establish this fact, that doesn't mean that the fact didn't exist prior to it being publicly established...does it?

I am not a lawyer and I am just trying to understand the points being made here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renie408 (Reply #67)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:48 PM

130. You get trapped in a logical loop there

The thing is that, yes, it is the supreme law of the land. But when you combine that with the fact that it was considered "supreme" only with respect to federal issues, you end up back at the starting point.

Take the First Amendment, for example. If you read it quite literally, prior to the 14th Amendment, it only restricts what "Congress" can do in relation to the listed things. That's pretty specific, if you think about it.

Where the supremacy clause gets interesting is in the various cases dealing with situations in which the Constitution assigned a power to Congress, but Congress didn't, in a particular instance, exercise it. For example, can a state dam a navigable waterway used for interstate commerce in a situation where Congress, having supreme authority over that subject matter, hasn't said one way or the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:04 PM

70. You have bought the Fox "News" bullshit

Its only effect is that the federal government could not ban gun ownership.


As seen numerous times over the last 20 years, the right-wing courts have now decided that no entity (town, village, state, etc.) can ban gun ownership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #70)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:39 PM

82. Sigh...

As we have also seen numerous times over the last 20 years, 1791 was more than 20 years ago.

Funny how that works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:17 PM

74. You are correct

In my opinion also, the poster has taken away completely incorrect assumptions about the 2nd amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:10 PM

98. One of the most powerful aspects of the U.S. constitution

was that it was written in the name of and was binding upon "We the People". This was (and is) one fundamental difference between it and the the Articles of Confederation -- which was an agreement between the states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:02 PM

129. those pesky details

 

I hate to spit hairs with you but the 10th amendment of the US Constitution states this: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I added the italics just in case you missed the obvious. Therefore your statement: "Before the 14th Amendment not one word of the bill of rights applied to the states." is just a little bit inaccurate.

Also, the "bill of rights" refers only to the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with the "Bill of Rights".

Not too often that someone writes one sentence that is wrong twice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tahoelewis (Reply #129)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:44 AM

131. But the tenth amendment is not a restriction on government power in the first place


It's not clear what hair you are trying to split, in the sense of the sentence to which you are taking issue. The context of the discussion here are about clauses which restrict government power.

What the tenth amendment does, as a reserve clause, is simply to state that any power not affirmatively granted to the federal government is reserved to the states. That actually reinforces the point Cthulhu is making. It doesn't "apply to the states" in the sense that it does not restrict the power of the states under any restriction which is applied by the Bill of Rights to the federal government. Quite literally the states are not "required" to do anything under the tenth amendment, unless you are arguing that they are somehow required to exercise an infinite number of powers reserved to them.

In other words, can you explain what the tenth amendment requires a state to do, or to refrain from doing?

You can't. Ergo, it doesn't apply to them, as it neither requires not forbids any action on the part of any state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tahoelewis (Reply #129)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:03 PM

147. Yep, pesky details

" Also, the "bill of rights" refers only to the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with the "Bill of Rights". "

Not quite sure you got the point if you think that's actually a response to his point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:31 AM

135. Here's why you're completely wrong

The supremacy clause.

I'd like you to explain how, exactly, the supreme law of the land did not apply to the states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:18 AM

156. i agree with the essence of what the OP was saying

thinking that gun owership offers protection against the Federal Government is ridiculous (with all due respect). If this was the case, we better have access to more potent weapons. however, guns can be used against other citizens, which they are all too often.

if a gun is only a tool, then control that tool.

this is not about any rights, it is about paranoia, profits, and the selfish interests (and narrow mindedness) of the gun nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:38 AM

3. Thank you so much. Excellent OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:39 AM

4. Thanks for your OP, TygrBright.

In any event, the authors and ratifiers of the Second Amendment did not envision the sophisticated weapons that mass murderers are using to terrorize society today. They would most likely be horrified at the rhetoric and the arsenals of the gun fanatics in our country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:35 AM

28. This is true.

 

But they also did not foresee automobiles or computers.

Rights of free speech and search and seizure still apply there, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:26 AM

5. Read Perpich v DOD

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/496/334.html

A unanimous court determined, contrary to your the argument, the militia is not the U.S. military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kennah (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:29 AM

7. I never stated that the militia IS the US military. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:36 AM

9. What you said was ...

"We still have militias, in the form of national guard units, available for immediate response and our states are empowered to train and arm those militias."

Read Perpich. The National Guard, State Guard, Reserves are not the militia. They are the military. Congress said so, and the SCOTUS confirmed it in a 9-0 decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kennah (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:42 AM

10. Well, I'm originally from Minnesota, and the Hamline University...

...Constitutional scholar who prepared the amicus brief opposing the Perpich suit made it abundantly clear that the scope of that decision relates solely to command jurisdiction and NOT to Constitutional status.

But for the purposes of this discussion it's not overwhelmingly relevant except as an argument by exclusion to distract from the gravamen of the assertion, so I'll go ahead and say, OMG, you're right and I'm wrong and that invalidates my entire argument and I'm off to humbly do penance by polishing bullets at Tina's Range Gear, now.

amusedly,
Bright

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:47 AM

11. You missed a spot

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kennah (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:54 AM

12. LOL... hand me some more steel wool. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:05 AM

14. Be careful. You don't wanna set the danged thing off in your hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:43 AM

17. Okay, you can have your guns

Last edited Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:37 AM - Edit history (1)

Whatever was available when the 2nd was ratified you can have.

Muzzle loaders for everyone!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCVDem (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:40 AM

29. And printing presses, too?

 

Look, I am as in as much anguish over these children as nearly any bystander. I've lost sleep over it.

My ideas on the second amendment are changing.

But there are some realities that are still realities, and they are going to have to be addressed, not puttied over with falsehoods for convenience.

The second amendment states "arms". It does not state "arms of the 18th century".

The idea behind the second amendment is that the people were to keep and bear arms that enable them to serve as military troops in an emergency. In the 18th century, that was a muzzleloader (not breechloader). Today, that is a modern rifle.

None of the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are limited to 18th century technology. We still have freedom of speech using computers. We still have the right to valid searches and seizures with telephones and automobiles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:26 AM

37. What about machine guns, RPGs, anti-aircraft missiles?

Where do you draw the line?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:34 AM

40. crew-served weaponry.

 

The second amendment is almost universally accepted to be about small arms appropriate for a soldier to carry.

It is not generally accepted to include explosives or crew-served weaponry.

An argument can be made in favor of machine guns but I am content for them to be restricted as they already are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:47 AM

42. If you want to look at it historically

from the context of those who wrote it at the time then there were no lines to be drawn.

The point was to protect the people from oppressive government, i.e. the British government, dictating to the people their actions. The colonials also had a great fear of a standing army and did away with the one mustered for the revolution right after. (And we continue to do it to this day, always downsizing when we don't need a huge army- the last time was under Bill Clinton in the 1990s)

When written the individual was responsible to have a gun and form when called to defend the town or state. It would have been beyond stupid to say, "Have a gun, but make sure it's not a modern military weapon with a bayonet, and gawd forbid it's a brown bess musket! Something like a 38 caliber squirrel gun will be fine."

However in today's society where we have Law Enforcement and a huge standing army it makes no sense to have guns in the hands of the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ElbarDee (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:36 PM

115. That's right. And we have the National Guard and state, county and city/town police

That's "well regulated militia" enough. Hand guns and automatic weapons in the hands of military and police only. Sporting/hunting guns (shotguns and rifles) should be enough to satisfy the gun jones of those of the public who want them and say they need a gun for protection. I for one don't want to live in a country where everyone is walking around carrying heat. You think we have a lot of these shootings now, just wait until the NRA's fantasy state comes about? If that happens, these shootings won't even make the news there'll be so routine. Massacre clean-up businesses will sprout up, along with discount, mass funeral service companies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:18 PM

124. That is called

a straw man argument. It is a logical fallacy.

The Supreme Court has ruled there is a right to individually possess firearms. There are limits, however, and ALL of the things you mention are heavily regulated, so obviously legislators have chosen that to be the line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCVDem (Reply #17)


Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:36 AM

64. My bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:55 AM

18. The nut jobs don't make a lot of sense to me!

They were fine under Bush and collected guns and thought the war was awesome and supported the military. Most still do, but now they are scared of the black dem president and they are all "bunkering" down like morons.

And I'm not talking about the other idiot "militias" that r against all govt... That's another category.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:04 AM

19. You are correct TygrBright

And all RW weapon fetishistic fool's heads are exploding.

There are 2 myths the NRA weapon fetish RepubliCONS believe about the constitution and you have just exploded those myths.

Myth 1: The 2nd Amendment means we all have a right to keep weapons and use them against the federal government, even if the federal government has tanks, aerial bombs and drones. Those little guns, even automatics that are so handy at killing mass civilians you don't like, are never going to protect you against the weapons of destruction the federal government keeps in their arsenal.

Myth 2: The constitution is for the federal government NOT the States. Yes, of course it applies to the states and prevents the states from abridging an individuals rights, but that's just a side affect, Not the true intent of the Constitution. Our founding fathers loved the states and thought that anything done by the states is not covered by the Constitution. Though how the Constitution protects people from government but not state government is a funny little twist of logic that makes RW talking points so absolutely useless to people who think.

And if you read the first few post you got, you get someone who thinks just like a RepubliCON and who is quoting you those two myths.

But since you seem to have common sense and aren't fooled by RW talking points, I have a question for you about the amendments or bill of rights. Notice that in all but the 2nd, and perhaps the 7th amendment, the writers do NOT explain themselves. Amendments 1, and 3 through 6 and 8,9 and 10 start with an action. Congress shall, No soldier shall, The rights of the the people...shall, No person shall, Excessive bail shall, the enumeration ....shall. In the 7th it is clear why they defined it. They had to put a dollar amount on it so that every petty dispute over 2 cents would Not become a jury trial. But in the 2nd they give a less specific explanation and explain that their purpose is to keep a well regulated Militia. Yet the gun fetish freaks ignore those words as if they have no import. But they are most certainly very important because no other amendment explains itself without reference to a dollar amount.

So my question is, do you suppose the writers of the Constitution thought that some citizens would seize on the idea of owning weapons to the exclusion of everything else, so that they explain the purpose of the amendment up front to allow for control of weapons? The ignorant fools who claim to be justices don't interpret it that way but using simple logic it seems to me to be the purpose. Why else explain the amendment up front when the other amendments don't explain themselves that way.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fasttense (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:45 AM

30. No, he is not. Nor are you.

 

Myth 1: The 2nd Amendment means we all have a right to keep weapons and use them against the federal government, even if the federal government has tanks, aerial bombs and drones. Those little guns, even automatics that are so handy at killing mass civilians you don't like, are never going to protect you against the weapons of destruction the federal government keeps in their arsenal.

It is worth noting that despite our massive technological superiority, the United States has not won many military engagements in the last 70 years.

Also note that in the case of a civil war such massive attacks would destroy our own infrastructure and tax base causing far more damage than the guns in civilian hands by themselves.

Myth 2: The constitution is for the federal government NOT the States.

Sorry, but this is not a myth. As was pointed out above, prior to the 14th amendment, adopted in 1968, not one word of the Bill of rights applied to the States.

But in the 2nd they give a less specific explanation and explain that their purpose is to keep a well regulated Militia. Yet the gun fetish freaks ignore those words as if they have no import. But they are most certainly very important because no other amendment explains itself without reference to a dollar amount.

So my question is, do you suppose the writers of the Constitution thought that some citizens would seize on the idea of owning weapons to the exclusion of everything else, so that they explain the purpose of the amendment up front to allow for control of weapons? The ignorant fools who claim to be justices don't interpret it that way but using simple logic it seems to me to be the purpose. Why else explain the amendment up front when the other amendments don't explain themselves that way.


The second amendment provides a reason for the people to keep and bear arms. Perhaps even the main reason. But it does not stipulate that this is the only reason to keep and bear arms.

It is like saying, "I am out of bread, so I am going to the store." This does not mean that stores only sell bread, or that the only reason I go to stores is to buy bread. It just means in the context of this sentence, I need bread and I can buy it at a store.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:12 AM

50. Of course the tenth amendment was passed and ratified well after the rest of it

Oh wait....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #50)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:13 AM

51. I don't understand what you are trying to say. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #51)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:19 AM

54. You might want to read the tenth

The heart to the state- fed conflict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #54)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:32 AM

60. I read it, and still don't see the point you are trying to make.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #60)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:18 PM

77. What part of all other rights are you purposely missing?

It's like the second fans missing the well regulated militias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #77)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:43 PM

85. Nothing, I just don't see the point you are trying to make.

 

Could you invest more than a couple of lines of text to try and tell me what you are trying to say by referencing the 10th amendment in this discussion?

The OP was trying to make the case that the second amendment was more a restriction of the states than the federal government. We know this is not true, not the least of which is because until the 14th amendment none of the bill of rights was enforced against the states.

The tenth amendment says all rights not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people.

What is the point you are trying to make here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #77)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:52 PM

86. Read it again

AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

(The second speaks of a well regulated militia...then there is the supremacy clause. To see the context, you might start with Federalist 29)

Have an excellent day.

I am now convinced people like to quote something they know both jack and shit about. I m sure the founders would classify this as a failure. The experiment is over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #86)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:15 PM

120. This (the tenth amendment) references powers, not rights .....

 

... there's a difference. The tenth does not address rights at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #30)


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:45 AM

20. A mentally ill person shooting little kids is not part of a well regulated militia

It is time for America to stand up and say loudly that somebody's 2nd amendment
rights do not supersede all of our 1st amendment rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness. And by that I mean the freedom to shop for Xmas presents at a mall
in Oregon, or go to a movie in Colorado, or drop your kids off at kindergarten so they
can learn their letters, numbers, and how to play nice w/others.

My heart is breaking for all involved.

?w=440&h=330

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:49 AM

44. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the 1st amendment does not mention "Life, Liberty....

and the pursuit of happiness"

In fact, those words do not appear ANYWHERE in the US Constitution.

They are in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:49 AM

21. Exactly.

Well written and informed OP!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:09 AM

23. That is one hell of an opinion you have there, but it is utterly indefensible.

And anyone who had ever taken the time to research the scanty history of the 2nd amendment would know that your entire diatribe above is simply indefensible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:19 AM

25. It's Quite Defensible

You may not agree with the interpretations that would formulate said defense, but it's certainly a defensible position.

Your opinion on the matter is not the absolute word on the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:12 AM

33. Well said

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:20 AM

55. 'Xept the history is all but scant

And contemporaneous documents support it. This includes the very available Federalist 29

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:34 PM

125. Why is such a compelling argument "indefensible"?

... I agree with your lead-in "Old Man"; that was, indeed, "one hell of an opinion". The logic of it seems utter compelling to a mind, such as mine, as must admit to being totally uninitiated on this issue. As to its being "utterly indefensible"; however, please, don't keep those of us who search blindly in the shadows, for enlightenment on this subject, in the dark; pray, don't "leave us hanging", as it were. Tell us why you say that, what the writer offers us, as to the context and intent of the 2nd amendment, cannot be defended. I'd like to hear from you as to the facts that support the conclusion you've drawn, at least as you understand the facts to be. I look forward to your analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:14 AM

24. Great Read, Tygr

I agree, as well.
GAC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:32 AM

26. Sorry, this is just wrong.

 

Every time this argument comes up, there is a simple thing to point out that destroys the whole argument.

If the idea was not to protect against the federal government, why, instead of a decentralized militia controlled by the states, did they not opt for a centralized militia controlled by the central government?

The cost would be the same, so it's not financial, as you suggest.

It's about avoiding concentrations of power.

The entire government was formed as a system of checks and balances.

This is why we have separate branches of government for the judicial, legislative, and executive functions.

This decentralization of power also extended to the military. The idea was to not have a federal standing army, or at least for the states to be able to counter it.

In a very real sense, the spirit of the second amendment is best exemplified in the modern era by retaining ultimate civilian control over our military establishment, and by ensuring all citizens equal access to service in the armed forces. We now have a standing military force, but it remains, in essence, a citizen military, controlled by civilian elected representatives, and comprised of all citizens regardless of gender, ethnicity, religious belief, state of residence, etc.

In fact, what we have today is a "military class" of citizen. Because we have a volunteer military, most of America insulated from the consequences of military service. Civilians aren't in control of our military - they are largely disconnected from it. And the ones who choose to participate in it are of a select mentality concerning America's military adventures over the last 70 years.

We still have militias, in the form of national guard units, available for immediate response and our states are empowered to train and arm those militias.

The National Guard today essentially functions as reserve federal troops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:27 AM

57. You might want to read Federalist 29

For starters.

What they envisioned is Switzerland, not our current mayhem. Hell, Hamilton even touched, prophetically, on our current mayhem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #57)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:13 PM

142. Fed 29 was in large part, a treatise on the proper organization of the militia

Please, quote me a portion of FP29 that seems to say what you think it does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:47 AM

31. The Purpose of The Second Amendment

Dear Sir.....you can argue all you want about what the purpose of the Second Amendment was. You weren't there and no one alive was either and as far as I have EVER seen, there are no contemporary notes to advise us of the purpose. IT EXISTS and it says this:
As passed by the Congress:
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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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.
So, it doesn't matter what the intent was. The constitutional amendment needed to change the dynamics of owning guns is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Further, if it did, there are so many firearms out there that removing them would be impossible. IF you choose to focus on controlling automatic weapons, know that it is very easy to convert a semi-automatic rifle to automatic. Attacks on schools are VERY common in China, mostly with knives. Recently, a son killed his father and someone else before committing suicide with a bow and arrows. It isn't the weapon. It is the nut job and liberals need to stop calling people who like firearms crazy and begin to work with them, especially the NRA, to find ways to sort out those nut cases. THAT, my liberal colleagues, is our best route to any existing solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JGug1 (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:52 AM

48. I get the distinct impression that you won't make it to ten posts. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JGug1 (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:23 AM

56. Oh for crying out lows, there is plenty of contemporary documentation

You might want to start with Federalist 29, follow that with the letters between Adams and Jefferson...just at the top of the pile.

This level of, forgive me, ignorance...is astounding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JGug1 (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:28 AM

58. It may very well happen

Amendments have been added and repealed before. If anything, we have proof that we need to re-adjust the Second Amendment to modern realities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JGug1 (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:40 AM

66. It DOES matter what the intent was.

You know ZERO about modern Constitutional interpretation if you think the framer's intent "doesn't matter."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:05 AM

32. Thomas Jefferson

 

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

The founding fathers weren't trying to preserve hunting. They made their intentions abundantly clear over and over.


An unarmed country would be a very bad thing if we had a serious national emergency while the republicans controlled all branches of the govt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frank380 (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:08 PM

71. The gun culture would provide no help whatsoever against

an oppressive or tyrannical government. Over the last 20 years we have seen election theft, voter suppression, 1st amendment zones, the patriot act, union busting, and so on, and not a single shot has been fired in opposition to any of these moves. Your premise is now proven bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #71)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:54 PM

108. The fact that americans are doing nothing

 

does not change jeffersons words. And it does not change the intent of the 2nd amemdment. The founding fathers overthrew their govt., the british. They did their best to make sure it could happen again, they were pretty confident it would need to happen eventually.

I can't imaging why you believe the actions of modern americans changes the meaning of the constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frank380 (Reply #108)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:44 PM

117. Because the Constitution changes over time

thankfully. Now your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (that the modern day gun nuts somehow will prevent a slide into tyranny) is, in the 21st century, ridiculous, as is proven my previous post. Since its primary purpose at this time is to put innocents in grave danger, it should be amended like the other vestiges of the days of slavery and musket balls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frank380 (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:06 PM

127. Is TJ the author of the second amendment?

Thought so.

I've got my own founding fathers - since this seems to be a game of quotes...

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."

-JA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:14 AM

34. Agree, we have a political system that allows "revolutions" every 4 years.

Our country is not the US of the 1770's. We spend $600BB+/year on the common defense. Those that keep guns because they don't trust our government are the true enemies of democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:14 AM

35. The Second Amendment was about three differnet types of protection:

1. If there was threat from outside the US our government couldn't protect us from.
2. If there was a criminal threat from within the US our government couldn't protect us from.
3. If there was an unresponsive, right wing, oligarchical government foisted on us that refused to respond to the people, that started arresting whole-scale without regard to law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:19 AM

36. IMO it's the "right of self-defense" not the "right to keep and bear arms" that is the key issue.

 

I believe most philosophers who acknowledge that humans have natural rights place the "right of self-defense" at or near the top.

If humans have rights, the question shifts to the source of those rights and in the U.S., that source is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That source is confirmed in debates leading up to the publication of the Bill of Rights which says in its Preamble, "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:"

IMO our continued debate over firearms is about the type of tool a law-abiding citizen should be allowed to use to exercise her/his unalienable right of self-defense, i.e. "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life".

Pennsylvania adopted its constitution on 28 Sep 1776 before it ratified our Constitution on 12 December 1787. The PA constitution said, "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." It also said, "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

PA ratified the BOR on 10 March 1790 and with contemporaneous knowledge of the Second Amendment, PA modified its constitution that took effect on 2 Sept. 1790 to say "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

As an inalienable right it is impossible for PA citizens to have given the right of self-defense away when they ratified our Constitution or when they ratified the BOR. PA citizens acknowledged that fact by retaining the right of self-defense in their constitution when they modified it just five months after they ratified the BOR.

What is a "right" in PA should be a "right" in the other 49 states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:36 AM

41. Taken together and in context, the 2nd and 3rd Amendments exist because we're not supposed to have

a standing army. The Framers considered having a standing army a huge threat to liberty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:49 AM

45. The Constitution is not a suicide pact

The "protect us from our government" crap is incredibly stupid.
So they are claiming that a government controlled by the people has a suicide pill built into it.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
That's the preamble, show me where it gives gun nuts the right to wage war against their own government.
This is the treason clause of the Constitution.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
For the gun nuts who continue these claims, where is the part that allows them to protect themselves from their government?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #45)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:50 PM

92. If the purpose was to

facilitate revolutions, how do they explain:

Article 1 section 8: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions;

Article 4 section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Also, shortly after the Constitution was passed, the feds used three state militias to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

Perhaps the founding fathers were more in favor of revolution when they were revolutionaries and less in favor when they were the ones governing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:50 AM

46. I disagree

I believe it was created so that slave states could defend what they saw as their right to keep slaves.

There were federal armed forces at the time, most notably the navy. The country as a whole would have responded to a threat from a foreign nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:15 AM

52. The amendment states its purpose quite clearly

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 key here being the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state".

Giving citizens the ability to overthrow their government would be directly at odds with the goal of protecting the security of that government.

It strikes me that if the intent was to give citizens the ability to overthrow their government then the phrase would have been something like "being necessary to the security of free men".

You may argue that "free state" referred to the individual states and that the intent was to give citizens the ability to protect their state from the federal government. But surely, if you have enough firepower to overthrow the federal government then you have more than enough to overthrow your state government, so it's still at odds with protecting the security of the state.

In any case, I find it incredible that any government would want to give its citizens the right to violently overthrow it.That's basically saying that those with the most firepower should be the ones who make the rules, which is clearly at odds with the freedoms the founding fathers wanted to protect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drm604 (Reply #52)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:17 PM

73. It is a teaching of sorts. Three different kinds of "states", ...

Consider "state", then consider "free state" vs "non-free state". A state without any qualifier could be either "free" or "non-free", so the adjective chosen in the constitution was "free", which is a more specific kind of state.

In the above sense the founders were teaching us what transformations cause a "free state" to become another kind of state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drm604 (Reply #52)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:32 PM

101. Exactly!

That would be called treason!

Agree 100%.

Now about those first three words....'a well regulated' .....when do we begin?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:18 AM

53. K&R

Good perspective and very informative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:30 AM

59. K/R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:34 AM

62. Logic problem: before the Revolution, the British gov't WAS "our government".

Arguments that only one generation of Americans (i.e. the first) had the right to resist a (hypothetically) tyrannical government are logically and morally unpersuasive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:36 AM

63. Don't forget the Indians.

At the time of the framing of the Constitution and B of R we still had a continent full of Indians that scared the shit out of us every now and again. We would be at war with with them for another 100 years, and in some ways we still are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:40 AM

65. You're wasting your time

It doesn't matter what the original intent or even the text of the Second Amendment. Only the interpretation matters, and the overwhelming majority of this country interprets it as a constitutional right to bear arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:13 PM

75. First Amendment: "Can't Yell Fire" Second Amendment: "Can't Open Fire"







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:18 PM

79. "Free State" confuses some of those who misinterpret

the amendment. They believe "state" means Arkansas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:41 PM

84. You are correct. Not many people even know that the 2nd Amendment was to keep citizens armed in

case the country was attacked because the founding fathers did not see the need for a standing army. They wrote extensively about it. Now that we have a military with rockets, tanks, drones, submarines and nuclear weapons there is no need for people to be called up if we are attacked. That is what the draft is for and was used for during WWI, II and the Vietnam conflict. People who are holding on to advanced weapons just in case the Anti Christ or some alien conqueror takes over the US government is misinformed and needs to bone up on civics and American history. The 2nd Amendment does protect our right to defend ourselves and provide meat for our tables, even thought that is antiquated. But to save our country from some tea bagging, tin foil hatters idea of a take over of the USA is not only a waste of time but a waste of mind. Dead children don't care the caliber of the weapon that murdered them. The NRA and their tea bagging right wing bigoted supporters are the only ones who feel a need for weapons that can kill often and quickly.

I would feel much better defending myself against someone with a knife, hammer, crow bar or axe than a semi automatic gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:56 PM

87. To all gun-worshipers who think the 2nd will protect you from your government,

HELLOOOO!

If your government (federal, state or local) wants to get you, they will drop on a drone on your ass, no matter how many guns you own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MsPithy (Reply #87)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:00 PM

95. Yep. And that will not happen.

Heck, if it didn't happen 'under' the cheney/bu$h junta.... no way it ever will!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:16 PM

88. You're BACK!!!!! Yay!!! When did you come back?

I love your posts and thought you were gone forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #88)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:07 PM

97. +1

Tyger's voice is greatly missed IMHO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:28 PM

89. Same argument over the same ground for 221 years and counting.

 

Could it possibly be that, in light of the fact that consensus is no more likely today than it was a century ago, our time would be better spent discussing potential solutions to immediate problems. Or would you rather just keep screaming at each other?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:59 PM

94. The 2nd Amendment reads:

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.

This statement has always seemed clear to me: Militias are groups of armed civilians who can be called to military service on short notice and can bring their own weapons to defend the state against whatever violent threats it may face. Militias are not the National Guard or the Reserves. To have a militia, the state must have an armed citizenry in possession of personal weapons. The problem we face today is that we have a citizenry armed to the teeth and no militia to justify it, as if just owning a gun was a right without a responsibility. If the need for a state militia has passed, the Constitution should be amended to reflect that and the uninfringed right to bear arms curtailed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #94)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:05 PM

96. Great point, and

"The problem we face today is that we have a citizenry armed to the teeth and no militia to justify it, as if just owning a gun was a right without a responsibility. If the need for a state militia has passed, the Constitution should be amended to reflect that and the uninfringed right to bear arms curtailed."

...a perfect summary of the problem detailed in the OP.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:28 PM

100. TWO WORDS: WELL REGULATED

You write:

It was a practical measure to ensure we all had the right to defend ourselves and our new nation against anyone who might want to grab back or assert control over any of our sovereign territory. That's why it starts with the words "A well-regulated (emphasis added) militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

It's also important to remember that the Bill of Rights represented two key concepts essential to the building of our nation: 1) The establishment of common ground among some very disparate colonial cultures and beliefs; and 2) the assurance that our central government would protect that common ground for all citizens regardless of which state they lived in.


It's more important to remember the first Three words of that Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #100)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:46 PM

106. Isn't Our Military The Well Regulated

militia?
Will the military be the first to take down by our new army of gun owners?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to otohara (Reply #106)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:49 PM

107. Not Sure You Get My Point

If the second amendment protects individual prvate gun ownership, the Constitution provides it can and should be WELL REGULATED.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:44 PM

104. Imagine if we were as serious about "guns" as we are "automobiles"

as to the manufacture, purchase, licensing, training, written and proficiency test, registration, annual re-registration complete with appropriate mechanical check, taxes on the consummable--gasoline (ammunition), legal status of owners, requirement to carry license at all times, responsibility and stiff penalties for any incident of injury, transfer of title and legal disposal.

We have done this before as a nation and it needs to be done with guns before we have every six-shooter wannabe or scared to death grandma or confused and angry kid or secessionist wackjob packing heat for protection.

They rode horses...we have been to the moon. They died of horrible diseases...we have antibiotics and insurance. They had to protect each other...we have the local police, FBI, State Police, 911, CIA, Highway Patrol, etc.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #104)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:32 PM

162. Guns/Cars

The rules to oeprate a vehicle are there to protect people from unsafe situations. You are free to build your own vehicle from the ground up, with no regulation and no rules. I could have 14 wheels and six engines and could propel itself by any means you see fit. The tires could be made of wood and it could run on the tears of puppies.

However, to operate it on a PUBLIC roadway it must conform to the rules. If you have the land, you can drive whatever you like on your own PRIVATE property. Or you can build a vehicle for a purpose (rock climbing) and then transport that vehicle to the location that it will be used, in those situations the government says nothing about the things you speak.

Guns are different than any other product and have no reasonble comparison as to how they should be regualted.

I would tend to agree that these "assualt rifles" have no general purpose, and I would have no desire or need to own one. They are out there, now we have to figure out how to regulate thier possession. Attempting to take my 12G is not going to get you where you want to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurker Deluxe (Reply #162)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:28 PM

163. I'm guessing this is sincere. The same is true for your kids...up to some level you can do to or

with them as you choose on your private property or in your home. There are laws and rules that provide boundaries, however...even though you "made them".

Same for guns on your private property or any homebrew, back 40 vehicle you devise. But guarantee you if that vehicular concoction ... or your 12G whatever the hell that is ... kills or wounds someone...your property or not...registered or not...you are held liable and subject to incarceration based on rights of other people/the public. Then your own family will suffer by default.

And yes, if society decides, wisely I might add, that you be required to declare this closely-held piece...then get it licensed and accept responsibility for it ongoing. Because if ever it strays out of your backyard for whatever reason, and hits my kid or anyone else's, your life will change significantly. I'm guessing it would be the same for you and yours...given someone else's situation not quite a pristine as yours. Or, one of your kid's friend gets hold of it.

Please notice that this did not have to do with "taking away" your piece, unless its illegal.
Just be responsible, register it, continue to be legally responsible for it and realize that the safety of you and yours could depend on someone else's idiocy...surely not yours.

That's why the vehicle laws...nobody gets in their car to go kill people. But more than a few buy guns to hurt people...in offense or defense. Shit happens and just consider it's for the idiots that met all the requirements but still drive drunk or speed or disregard laws or get drugged and gun-happy vs. the innocent folk, like the your kids and kids at Newtown.

Small price to pay, IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:03 PM

109. Actually, the only thing that could change the current SCOTUS interpretation

of the 2d Amendment would be a majority of liberal justices on the court.

It is possible that we will see a center-right court sometime during the next four years, if one of the older conservative justices like Kennedy or Scalia or maybe Thomas should decide to retire or if one of them dies or becomes seriously ill.

Even then, the concept of stare decisis (sp), meaning not overruling previous decisions unless there is a clear and important reason for doing so, could keep the court with the current expansive view of the 2d.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:54 PM

119. Collective right vs. individual right.

"The right of The People" is not necessarily the same as "The right of every citizen."

If the Second Amendment is interpreted to grant unspecified and thus unlimited gun rights to every citizen, as the NRA would have us believe, it is a certain recipe for domestic murder and mayhem as well as an invitation for individuals to form their own private armies capable of challenging the government and/or seceding. That's not how you form a "more perfect union."

It's about guaranteeing the collective the right to defend itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:22 PM

122. Time to REPEAL the second amendment

I just sent this to my congressional representative (she's retiring soon):

Dear Congresswoman Woolsey:

Repeal the Second Amendment Now.

It is irrational that we have a constitutional right to own a gun but not a car. A car has utility and purpose, transporting us to where we need to go, and occasionally tragically causing death. Guns have the sole purpose of causing death. They have no other utility.

Please, I beg of you, in your final days in Congress, make the most courageous stand of your life. Introduce a bill to amend the Constitution, striking the second amendment from the Bill of Rights. Take the one real, bold, sane action that will be a fitting memorial to the children and adults massacred in Newtown.

Only after the second amendment is repealed can we have meaningful regulation of guns, which rationally needs to be much stronger and more rigorous than the licensing and insurance requirements for cars, rather than far weaker as is currently the case. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

Challenge your congressional colleagues to pass your bill and send the amendment to the states for ratification. Stand up to the bloodthirsty, moneyhungry NRA. Trust that in all states of our union, there are enough people who love children more than they love guns. Let us have a REAL, meaningful conversation about rights and guns and death.

Challenge your colleagues to exhibit as much courage as a kindergarten teacher or an elementary school principal.

Repeal the Second Amendment Now. It is obvious what we need to do to have any hope of preventing further Newtowns. No other response is proportional to this ongoing catastrophe.

Repeal the Second Amendment Now.

Respectfully,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:22 PM

123. What a load of horse puckey

Just goes to show that we have our own revisionists who just make crap up to reinforce their own bias. It's just as obnoxious as the ignorant yucksters who pretend the USA is based on God's law or some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:21 PM

128. John Adams

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 3:475 (1787-1788).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:19 AM

137. We can always cherry pick our quotes to support our own bias

"Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." - Noah Webster

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution," Coxe was a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:23 PM

138. This OP does not offer a holistic analysis of the Colonial / Constitution era context...

Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:54 PM - Edit history (2)

"These are the real spirit of the second amendment, not the paranoid nutnicks hoarding canned goods and wearing camo and muttering about the President setting up FEMA camps and conspiring to take their gunz away."

After #Sandy, no one can be admonished as a "nut" for "prepping" and having enough food to sustain one's family through hardship. #McDonalds and #Carl's Jr are not real food. The 'instantaneous' mechanisms of corporate capitalism are not reliable at all times.

I enjoyed reading through the connections of your arguments, but we should also look at the entire historical context, as you say.

Consider...The Declaration, written by and through the historical context you invite us to immerse ourselves in, declared that we, the people, should be able to throw off tyrannical government. Jefferson also said watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots every few decades could be seen as an imperative. You overlook that context in your above argumentation. I'm not arguing for bloodshed, just pleading for you to have a holistic historical analysis. The founders had a much different view of gun ownership than your reductive cherry-picking alludes.

The issue is unfortunately very complex. Guns are lethal. They take away loved ones. Sometimes even children. Who cannot shed tears after what recently happened? But who can also not see the value in a single mother equipped to take out the drugged-out thief and rapist breaking into her home and attempting to violate herself and her children? Who among us wants to mount a billboard on our residence that says in huge letters: "I do not own any guns. The nearest cop will arrive 45 minutes after I call 9-1-1. Please feel free to break into our home, steal our belongings, and rape each and every one of us to your heart's content."

Yes, guns are designed to kill. Different than a car, which can also kill, but is designed to move a person from A to B. The problem with these types of comparisons is that they, too, are also too reductive. The mouth is not only designed for talking. It takes in food, it can satisfy sexual functions, . And likewise, guns are not only designed to kill, but to instill fear in the criminal that s/he should think twice or thrice before breaking into a responsible citizen's home and brutalizing the vulnerable who would be even more vulnerable if a full gun ban were to be imposed, as many are calling for.

The issue isn't as black and white as many are making it out to be. We live an increasingly sick and perverse nation. At times owning a firearm is the only safeguard against the mentally ill, like we saw this year in Connecticut, Aurora, Oregon, etc. And what was the solution in Conn? Calling in the SWAT, armed with ... guns.

My take.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:27 PM

139. Exaxtly !!! The forefathers were scared shitless that England would come back ( they did in 1812)

so it made a lot more sense to send the soldiers back home with their weapon instead of warehousing them somewhere to rust away or be stolen.

The soldier got a "free" gun to hunt with, and was armed in case he had to fight the British again.. The whole "militia" language was there to remind men that they might be called up again, so they better practice & drill..just in case..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)


Response to TygrBright (Original post)


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:37 AM

154. Amen! And a question:

I love you for taking the time to write this. Better than I ever could have.

One question: Isn't this pro-gun blathering about a 'right' to defend against gov't treason talk?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:45 AM

157. Well

Reading and "listening" to all this allows me to add my 2 cents. Thank GOD for the 21st amendment, now all you constitutional scholars, shut-up and have a drink.... If all this scholarly talk is in reference to the murders last weekend, then think of it this way. We need comprehensive Mental Healthcare Reform. We need to invest in Mental Healthcare, like we do for cancer, let's raise billions in research for mental healthcare. Let's let our front line people, such as teachers and caregivers have the right and ability to report problematic/disturbed/abused/isolated children to the authorities without the fear of reprisal and being a scapegoat. If a teacher says I believe little Billy is showing signs of violence toward other children, let's investigate, instead of pushing it aside and claiming it as a generational phase developed by viewing Dogs of War video games. We all know gun control in this country will not work. We as a country need to come together and figure out these problems now before another attack of this nature occurs again.

Nothing in the Constitution can help this country unless we as the country agree on something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:44 PM

170. I think Jefferson put it pretty succinctly when he stated:

 

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms" - from the Virginia Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread