Does the 2nd Amendment confer an individual RKBA?

[Squatch]

RKBA = Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Sometimes, I think the amendment was put into the BoR (Bill of Rights) to confound and confuse law makers. Other times, I think that even though the amendment is written in such a way, its meaning is clear: people (that's you and I) will not be denied the right to arm ourselves.

Here's the amendment as written:

"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 sticking point is the first clause containing "well regulated militia", in particular the word "regulated". In today's usage, the word regulated is most commonly used to convey control through the rule of law.

However, I think its historical usage was used to convey order and discipline, as evidenced by this rebuke delivered by George Washington to General Putnam during the preparation of the defenses in and around York Island (aka Manhattan) in 1776:

"The distinction between a well regulated army and a mob is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behavior of the latter"

So, applying some substitution into the 2nd Amendment, I think it's safe to rewrite it as:

"A well ordered and disciplined militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Given that members of the militia in 1776 brought their own weapons to battle and not provided arms by Congress, the meaning of the 2nd Amendment becomes clear.

Here's what I think the framers of the Constitution were thinking:

- There may come a time when Congress has to call on the people to fight its wars.
- Since they are going to bring their own arms to battle, we can't deny them the RKBA.
- But, we can't have an armed mob on our hands, so it's Congress' responsibility to train them into an ordered and disciplined force.

-----

This thread will probably be relegated to the depths of the Gun Dungeon, but I thought it could kicked around in GD for a while.

[treestar]

1. The times

In the case of the Second Amd., the times were so different. Then you had the "militia" consisting of all able bodied men who were presumed to have arms, that's what they needed to survive as it was, without questions of war and defense.

It's hard to say how it applies to the modern world. Basically, we the people are in charge and the government should not be able to disarm us so as to rule over us, but how to keep that going seems problematic where having guns nowadays wouldn't necessarily mean the government could not oppress us.

It is fascinating in some ways that no President tries saying: I'm not leaving office, do as I say, since I have the nukes. It sort of lends a greatness to every President who ever left office, since the nuclear state has existed.

[billbuckhead]

2. Over and over and over and over again it's been ruled a collective right

It's only the bloodthirsty money grubbing gun lobby and those it brainwashes that thinks otherwise. Here's what the ACLU thinks.

Gun Control

"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's
unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"

BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
---------------snip------------------------------------------
U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said.

In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case.
------------------snip------------------------------
<http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html>

The Second Amendment in the Courts

As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia.

Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore, twice - in 1965 and 1990 - the Supreme Court has held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard.

In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment issue again, after the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance banning handguns (making certain reasonable exceptions for law enforcement, the military, and collectors). After the town was sued on Second Amendment grounds, the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only was the ordinance valid, but there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment (Quillici v. Morton Grove). In October 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling, allowing the lower court rulings to stand.

In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as "the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime... ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see - and I am a gun man." Burger also wrote, "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a ‘Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms..."

Since the Miller decision, lower federal and state courts have addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, up until March of 1999 (see below), the courts decided that the Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in connection with a state militia. Even more telling, in its legal challenges to federal firearms laws like the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban, the National Rifle Association makes no mention of the Second Amendment. Indeed, the National Rifle Association has not challenged a gun law on Second Amendment grounds in several years.
----------snip--------------------------
<http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second>

[Katzenjammer]

10. And the courts have also ruled that the PATRIOT Act is constitutional, so what does that prove

except that the courts are too often on the side of the despots?

Just because someone says something is X rather than Y, and threatens to jail or kill you if you don't agree, doesn't mean it really is X not Y.

*ANYONE* who reads the original debates from the time and still honestly comes to the conclusion that it's not an individual right is either illiterate in English or psychotic.

[unpossibles]

11. interesting. Now at least I know the real reason my father in law hates the ACLU

he makes the normal RW radiot noises about how they are anti-Christian, but seeing as how he is not a Christian I could never understand why he would be against a group which protects everyone equally. Now it makes sense, as he is definitely a gun collector to the extreme.

As for me, I own a gun (and a sword and a bow, and some knives, and a blowgun... lol), but I am fine with regulation in the legislative sense. I have to have a license to drive or do anything else potentially dangerous. I think more stringent gun legislation is fine.

Shit, I am way more afraid of them removing my 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment rights, than the second to be completely honest. The idea of guns - beyond any sport enjoyment, which I have no problem with - as protection against tyranny should obviously be a last resort, not the first.

We should always try to come to a peaceful solution within the system or if need be change the system. At the point when guns would be necessary to fight a tyrannical centralized government, I am frankly not going to worry about them being illegal or not.

[Recursion]

14. Maybe the 1st amendment establishes collective rights too

I mean, it's not like any given person should expect freedom of speech or religion; that language is mainly designed to allow society as a whole to speak and worship freely. It's not like every single person should be able to. And the search and seizure protections were collective rights too; society as a whole should be free from unreasonable search and seizure, but any given individual can't expect privacy of his or her property and person. And the right against self-incrimination? That's collective. Same with the 13th amendment: slavery is abolished as a collective condition, but individuals can still be enslaved, right?

:sarcasm:

I love DU but people's position on this issue really ticks me off. We have a right to arm ourselves for defense against others and the government. Period. If you are against that I have trouble calling you a friend of liberty.

[slackmaster]

29. That erroneous interpretation is why I stopped giving the ACLU money

:nuke:

[Retired AF Dem]

65. If that is true than the entire Bill of Rights

is a collective right. Isn't a collective right the same as an individual right since individuals make up the collective? Does get confusing.

[originalpckelly]

7. If you don't like the rights in the second amendment...

Amend the US Constitution. One cannot simply disregard a part of a legal document just because it doesn't matter anymore. Unless it has been formally amended, there is no way to change wording of the document.

[derby378]

28. That's my argument exactly

There's also US v. Emerson to consider. Yes, the Fifth Circuit was a conservative court at the time of the ruling, but I think they were spot-on with the rulings handed down: (1) that Timothy Joe Emerson was a danger to himself and to society, and therefore should not own firearms, and (2) that the Second Amendment conveys an individual right.

[Mikey929]

32. Dangerous things

Guns are so dangerous, people. I mean, how many innocent kids have to die before we recognize that fact? Accidents, suicides, drive-bys. All the innocent victims of a broken society.

Guns do kill people. And in an ideal world, we would be able to live in peace. I choose not to own a gun because I don't want to contribute to the poisoned atmosphere that that conveys. I don't hunt so I don't need it for that. Guns are really behind the times. We don't need them anymore.

I also trust the police to protect me. Having a gun in the house is more dangerous than not having one.

I long to live in a world that believes in peace, not armed deterrence. That is not peace; it is fear. And I won't live like that.

We would all be better off with all guns dumped in the ocean.

[Doctor Venmkan]

46. Rebuttal:

I mean, how many innocent kids have to die before we recognize that fact? Accidents, suicides, drive-bys. All the innocent victims of a broken society.

You got it right in the second part - victims of a broken SOCIETY. Irresponsibility and inattentiveness on the part of parents for the most part. Kids can and do hurt themselves with things OTHER than guns, when parents aren't looking. Pool drownings? Kids can and do commit suicide by OTHER means than a gun. Yes, no guns would mean no drive-bys. But then the "bangers" would just find other means to get revenge on their "rivals." Unless of course their parents steered them into BETTER pursuits. What a novel idea!


Guns do kill people. And in an ideal world, we would be able to live in peace. I choose not to own a gun because I don't want to contribute to the poisoned atmosphere that that conveys

1) So do sticks, knives, stones, and trained hands and feet
2) The world is not what it OUGHT to be, it is what it is...
3) How does being a responsible, law-abiding gun owner contribute to a "poisoned" atmosphere???

Guns are really behind the times. We don't need them anymore.

Wrong...PEOPLE are behind the times. Like you said, we SHOULD be above the point where sick and evil and dangerous people are willing to kill, rob, and rape their fellows. Until we get to that level, people need effective means of self-defense.

I also trust the police to protect me. Having a gun in the house is more dangerous than not having one.

I also trust the police. Problem is, at any given time the nearest one is half an hour away. If attacked, I would be dead many times over before a LEO was even CLOSE to where I was at. Even if you live in a big city, the police will NOT just materialize the SECOND you need them. Thinking otherwise is folly.

And having a gun in your home or on your person is dangerous to you ONLY in two circumstances. You're irresponsible, or you're not willing to actually kill in self-defense. In the former, you'll eventually have an accident. In the latter, a hardened criminal will sense your hesitation and go about his business anyway - possibly after taking your gun and killing YOU with it!


I long to live in a world that believes in peace, not armed deterrence. That is not peace; it is fear. And I won't live like that.

Your choice, your life. I'm not "preaching," just explaining how *I* see things.

We would all be better off with all guns dumped in the ocean.

No we wouldn't. Unless you threw all the aforementioned twisted, evil, and dangerous people in the ocean WITH them. As long as they are around, there WILL be a need for self-defense. Even if you choose to believe that that *insert violent criminal here* that's sizing you up will agree with you that since you don't own a gun, he should do HIS part to "break the cycle."

[iverglas]

48. gullible much?

One seldom sees such a collection of pseudo-pro-firearms control talking points in one place. Being offered them on a plate is so much better than having to put them together out of straw, isn't it?

[Doctor Venmkan]

49. If you'd like to counter anything I've said, then kindly just do it...

...rather than offer up a snide remark about the whole thing. :eyes:

[Madspirit]

67. Doctor Venmkan

I agree with every single word you say, your entire rebuttal. To the naive...well hey, I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony, also but until all the rapists and creeps are gone and/or I live right across the street from the cop shop, I want the right to own a gun.

Plus, I don't entirely trust the police. IF anything ever did go down with our government, the police role, historically, has been to protect the ruling party, the government interests, not the people.

Lee

[iverglas]

68. isn't it just too bad

that the good doctor was rebutting thin air -- or rather, air thick with straw?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=198735

Maybe he actually didn't know that ...

[Madspirit]

69. I thought

He offered a counter to every single point made and he did quite well at it. ...and HE didn't use snark or snideness or deflect or misdirect or...
Lee

[iverglas]

71. well youse guys just don't wanna get it, do you?

The poster to whom the good doctor replied was a TROLL.

It just ain't that difficult to counter the "points" made by trolls -- in this case, a fine pile of straw masquerading as advocacy of firearms control, identifiable as what it was by anyone with half a brain cell. (Whether you and Dr V recognized it for what it was, I don't know.)

Getting it yet?

How about if I stand over here?

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

73. posterity deserves to know

Actually I have a high IQ.

I didn't suggest you don't have a high IQ. I said nothing about your IQ. But gee, thanks for enlightening me.

I was talking about the dimness of anyone who didn't recognize the poster whose "points" are in issue here as a troll.


I would also call a Troll someone who questioned the number of brain cells of someone supposedly an ally.

I have absolutely no way of knowing whether you or Dr. V recognized the troll as a troll, so I would hardly purport to draw any conclusions about your or his intelligence based on your failure to recognize a troll, when I don't know whether you failed to recognize a troll.

Getting that?

Interesting that you say "supposedly an ally". Couldn't have put it better myself.


In fact, THAT is much more Trollish than the supposed Troll.

Yes, it would be, if it were a reality. Figments of imagination aren't generally anything at all.


...but hey, thanks for clarifying everything for me. How would I think without an asshat like you around?

Ah! It's loaded question time! Stopped beating your dog yet??


...and that the Dr. was replying to a Troll, didn't make his answers any less pertinent.

"Pertinent" to ... thin air, air thick with straw ... interesting concept.


So, screw you.
Lee

Ew.
Windward.

[Madspirit]

75. Didn't say...

...it would be me screwing you. "Ew" indeed.
Lee

[shield20]

70. Choice..

Atleast (for now) we can all make that choice. Its just that some of us prefer a more active roll in our own defense. While trusting the police is all well and good, the chances of them being there when you need them most, when you need them NOW, are pretty slim.

Guns are just guns, they are just "things", like cars, that do NOTHING without someone at the controls. If you do not trust yourself to be safe and responsible with a firearm, by all means don't get one. Please don't try to infringe the rights of those of us who don't mind taking the time and effort to be responsible...that way we don't have to live in fear either. Hmmm...wouldn't it be nice if the armed criminals were actually the ones in fear - of committing criminal acts? Maybe then it wouldn't be necessary to try to use their actions to justify disabling natural rights for the other 99.88% of us.

Dumping all guns in the ocean may indeed makes us better off, but that wouldn't be enough - you have to keep moving down the list of "dangerous weapons" till we are all safe (although some criminal types are pretty darn big, and can probably kick the shit out of you!). When that ideal world does come around, let me know! In the mean time, I'll be spending time at the range.

[itsmesgd]

3. Jefferson was against the idea of a standing army in times of peace

He rather wanted to have a pool of trained and armed citizens available in the event of a need for a "security" action. He was not an imperialist and did not plan on "spreading democracy" or "nation building". He believed that a well trained and disciplined force of citizens would be effective and enough to protect the country. After all, that's how we won our freedom- with a militia based army, not an organized professional army.

Look around today and see who is more effective in protecting one's homeland. It's the local militia. Private armies train to attack. Militias protect communities.

This is not a "gun" issue in my opinion, and I hope that it will not be relegated to the gun forums.

[underpants]

5. There is no mention of an Army in the Constitution

they established a Navy but no Army-militias were expected to suffice until a Army needed to be raised to fight a war. This plan was part of the reason that DC was burned in the War of 1812 they weren't able to raise, train, and arm an Army quick enough.

Okay there is mention of an Army in the "no quartering" amendment.

[Recursion]

15. The army is mentioned

Armies can be raised for periods of up to 2 years. Even today, every 2 years Congress technically reconstitutes the Army and Air Force. The Navy and Marine Corps, by contrast, are continuous bodies and have been for about 225 years.

[Recursion]

24. In fairness, Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution

He and Patrick Henry both said they "smelt a rat" in the convention and were remarkably cool to it (Washington and Madison were the only substantial Virginians to support it, but they were enough).

Now, Madison in Federalist 46 stated that having an armed populace gave the US a great security advantage over other countries (look at the Israel/Lebanon war this summer if you need to be shown why -- people who say "armed individuals are irrelevant against modern armies" obviously don't read newspapers). Henry, Jefferson, and Harry Lee all said that the populace needs to be armed to keep the government on its toes and prevent tyranny. In some sense, "armed mobs" were exactly what the framers were allowing for, to prevent a Federal takeover of individual rights.

[originalpckelly]

4. Well, what's interesting is that you've come across the problem with our Constitution...

unlike most modern laws, the US Constitution doesn't have a definitions section, where key terms that change the actual functioning of a provision depending upon their definition are contained.

Example:

The chapter of law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html

The definitions section of the law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html


As you can see the example is a definitions section of a modern law, in this case the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. There are of course laws which are thought to be so simple as to not need this, but most modern laws do contain a similar section.

Most of the debate surrounding the US Constitution is centered on what words of phrases in the US Constitution mean.

This nation needs a definition section for the US Constitution.

[Kagemusha]

6. The courts definitely have agreed with the 'can't have a mob' part

If that was not the case, there'd be no such thing as crimes with firearms. There obviously are, so the right comes with regulation.

The point was that this regulation was not supposed to become wholesale disarmament. There was a limit considered reasonable in the US which would not have been considered reasonable in other countries where the sovereign was more sovereign and the people were less free. That's subjective. But, I've been shown statistics showing that the US populace is a hell of a lot better "armed" than it was when the Constitution was written; subjectivity is required because circumstances do nto remain locked in a time warp...

[On the Road]

8. I Suspect The Language is Schizophrenic

The ordinary people wanted an individual right to own guns, but the framers of the language were worried about revolts and placed the right in the context of state (or federal) militias.

Whether the right should be interpreted as individual depends not only on the intention but on the purpose that arms are kept for. One school of thought is that citizens should be armed to protect themselves against an oppressive state. If that is true, then the right is individual.

[Katzenjammer]

12. I suspect the authors never imagined that they could be misunderstood

They put it in the list of individual rights, right after the speech, religion, and assembly rights that were such a big problem under British rule. Most people not agenda-driven usually consider that to be a hint (that's not a slap at you).

The dust had hardly settled from the war that put them in a position to write a Constitution, and that war had been won because ordinary people already knew how to shoot and didn't need to be operated in big automaton blocks like conscript soldiery in the UK/Europe needed to be.

Yeomen and gentlemen were REQUIRED to arm themselves in Britain, because they were the first and last line of the Crown's defense. So the notion that ordinary people would own their own weapons was not a strange one.

[On the Road]

25. I Don't Think Bearing Arms was a Strange Concept

but there is something strange about how the amendment was worded. The writers were educated and subtle people. And when something is odd like that, it's useful to ask whether the language is concealing something -- a compromise between conflicting parties, a desire to pay lip-service, a fear that cannot be directly expressed. That's why I find that theory worth considering.

For example, in Britain, as you point out, gentlemen were expected to bear arms and defend the crown. In America, no such distinctions could be made and rights would normally be held by all citizens. The common people may have been considered as much of a threat as an ally by government leaders. There were principles and fears working in different directions. That kind of situation often results in odd language.

[Katzenjammer]

37. "there is something strange about how the amendment was worded"

Only to our modern eyes. If you get a native speaker of German to translate the sense of that amendment into English, you'll get something very close.

Today we don't use as many commas, to set off clauses, the way English-speakers did then, and German-speakers still do. Note the similiar use, in the Preamble to the Bill Of Rights:

"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: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

Look familiar? :)

Many Writers in English at that Time also still capitalized Nouns the way People writing in the German Language still do. The Scribe only did it to "Government" in the Preamble, but see Mason's copy of the Virginia Declaration of Rights for a full-blown Example of Germanic Capitalization:


If we take those two now-not-used commas out of the Second Amendment, doesn't it look a lot more normal? "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."

[William769]

9. This is my take on it.

The U.S. Constitution is a living breathing document which was written in such a way that it could be interpreted to the times.

Some of our founding fathers were way before their time.

[leftofthedial]

13. no

[HamdenRice]

16. Ever heard the expression: "The People v. John Doe"?

In various states, different captions are used to name criminal law suits. The framers had experienced British criminal prosecutions which were entitled Rex v. John Doe, which meant, The King v. John Doe.

Since they had gotten rid of the king, various states began to caption law suits in various ways:

NY: "The People v. John Doe"

MA, VA: "The Commonwealth v. John Doe"

Other states: "California v. John Doe"

"The People" means the State government. The amendment refers to the right of state governments to maintain well regulated militias. "We the people," the phrase that begins the Constitution refers to the various peoples represented by the various state governments, not the people as an undifferentiated mass.

If the framers had intended the Constitution to give individuals the right to bear arms, the text would read:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of any person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

All other individual rights in in the Constitution refer to "persons" or "citizens".

[Recursion]

19. I guess that applies to search and seizure too?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So that's just "the people's" right and not each individual's? I guess the PATRIOT act is Constitutional then, since it only affects certain individuals. That's good to know, because I had been worried about it for a while, but now that you've convinced me that it's Constitutional because the framers said "the people" instead of "any person", I'm a lot less hostile to it.

:sarcasm:

[HamdenRice]

22. It refers to individual warrants

You left the operative part of the amendment out: "and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." As the framers experienced criminal cases, all warrants were issued in individual criminal prosecutions, so there was no need to refer to individuals, persons or citizens, because the warrant clause individuated the right.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

45. my, my

Aren't you just a charmer?

There's a thing that people around here are quite fond of saying. It goes along the lines of how when one doesn't have an argument, one reverts to insult.

Tsk.

[piedmont]

47. Ah, well. Never write titles while cranky...

It does bug me to see someone saying "the people" means "the States" only when it pertains to their least favorite amendment. Knee-jerk reaction, vey unbecoming.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jody]

44. The three SCOTUS decisions below say people refers to individuals.

DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)

ADAMSON V. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA , 332 U.S. 46 (1947)

|UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)

[xchrom]

17. websters on line dictionary

privides some interesting insight to the word militia.

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/militia

U.S. and English

For much of the history of England, the military was controlled by Parliament, which had access to the resources to maintain a standing army. At various times, the Crown and Parliament were in strong disagreement, but Parliament's economic ability to use the army was counterbalanced by the Crown's traditional ability to call out the militia. As long as the army's weapons were not radically more powerful than the militia's, this balance of power was effective.

The early Puritan colonists of America considered the militia an important social structure, nessecary to defend their colonies from Native American attacks. All ablebodied white males were expected to be members of the town milita.

In the American Revolutionary War, colonial militiamen or armed citizens agreed to turn out for service at a minute's notice. The term minutemen is used especially for the men who were enrolled (1774) for such service by the Massachusetts provincial congress. These were also known as the "valiant farmers" who fought against the British at Lexington and Concord.

The Framers of the United States in keeping with this tradition, gave Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia," as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States may have been intended to formalize this balance between the "well-regulated" militia and organized military forces. Considerable controversy exists in the US over this amendment, however, and the ability of even a well-regulated militia to resist a modern army is debatable.

[piedmont]

42. About that last sentence....

"and the ability of even a well-regulated militia to resist a modern army is debatable."

see:
French resistence in WWII
Russian resistence in WWII
Iraqi militias today
Afghan resistence to the Soviets
and many others
plus

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
--Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Yes, the idea of a militia going head-to-head with a modern army is absurd. But militias don't do that in real life. They practice assymetrical warfare (just as they did in the American Revolution), and they are extremely effective.

[Renew Deal]

18. I think you are correct.

I agree with your analysis of regulated militia meaning order and discipline. I also agree that americans have a constitutional, traditional, customary, and historical right to keep and bear arms. After that, things get tricky.

[GreenZoneLT]

20. You missed a comma

It's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

In other words, the clause about the right to keep and bear arms is a SUBORDINATE clause. The Amendment says, "The existence of well-regulated militia shall not be infringed by the federal government," with two subordinate clauses: 1) the militia is necessary to the security of a free state 2) The people have a right to keep and bear arms. "Bearing arms" in the 18th century specifically meant serving in the ranks as a soldier, btw, not simply carrying a gun.

The founding fathers were experienced enough to know that individual gun ownership is little hindrance to an overbearing state; all they need is a small number of troops to outflank and kill any armed individual who wants to resist tyranny. (See Iraq, where every household under Saddam Hussein's repressive police state had its Kalashnikov). Only in formed, trained groups are armed individuals able to protect their liberty.

There is considerable evidence that the right to KEEP arms referred to an individual right, since it was a sensible way for a militia to be armed at the time. The Swiss still do it that way; they have compulsory national military service followed by lifelong reserve duty, and everyone keeps an assault rifle and ammunition in their house.

Since the federalization of the national guard, the whole things a bit of an embarrassing moot point now. The well-regulated militia is frequently infringed upon.

[Recursion]

27. Are you joking?

Only in formed, trained groups are armed individuals able to protect their liberty.

Yes... if Iraq has taught us anything, it's that irregular militias can't hope to stand up and offer meaningful resistance against organized armies. :sarcasm:

You're joking, right?

[JacksonWest]

30. I don't think Iraq is as good an example as you think.

Most of the resistance is organized and trained. And the infrastructure for these organizations is found in their religious past. They aren't fighting a common enemy either. The enemy is a moving target. Outside influences are present ,and are also targeting Americans-while a full fledged civil war rages in the streets.

We're not losing a war in Iraq-we're also not fighting one. We haven't suffered enough losses to mandate a retreat of any sort. But, most of the fighting and killing in Iraq is being done by the people of Iraq-to each other. It's a situation we created-and it's far from any semblance of order. However, if we decided that we were going to back one side over the other-Iraq would become very different. But we're not, and Iraq is a failed policy in my opinion, not a war.

[krispos42]

38. But that is how invaded countries resist

Usually there is an organized, professional army fighting on the front lines, while behind the invading country's lines there are armed rebellions, resistance attacks, shadowy militias, and insurgencies. They raid logistical lines, communications lines, assassinate officers, plant explosives, and attack isolated bands of occupying troops.

An an invading army moves inward, the defending armies used whatever sources they could scrape up to augment the defenses and to secure behind-the-lines strategic objectives.

When the invaders are being pushed out by the home army, hasily-organized militias are used to help hold recaptured cities and defeat pockets of the enemy.

The behind-the-lines resistance and insurgents attacks come from nationalism and/or religion. The French Resistance fought because they were fighting for France. The Shia in Iraq are fight for the Shia branch of Islam. The Russian partisans fought for Russia and Communism after FIRST greeting the Nazi Germans as liberaters from Communism with flowers and candy.

We moved so fast in Iraq that this did not have time to develop during the actual combat phase. But now that we've been there for nearly 4 years without helping the populace a whit, it has developed, and strongly. Now it is an ethnic, religious, and nationalistic insurgency.

And outside influences are commonly present as well. Who was funding and supplying the French Resistance? The Allies.

Who was supplying the South in our own Civil War? The French and the British.

Who was supplying us during our Revolution? The French!

And you are absolutely right. It is not a war, it is an occupation. Once that we have botched beyond hope.

[shield20]

31. Hardly - not by this founding father anyway

who originally wrote the bill...comas not withstanding..

Madsion:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

[Irreverend IX]

39. The first and third commas in the 2A aren't supposed to be there.

They aren't on the original handwritten parchment, and the addition of such superfluous commas was a grammatical curiosity of the 1700s. The militia clause simply provides a rationale for the amendment; again, the incorporation of a preamble is a peculiarity of 18th-century law which modern legislators avoid.

[slackmaster]

21. It enumerates a right that was already understood to exist when it was written

In the late 18th century, nobody questioned the right of individuals to have weapons for their own protection, hunting, and common defense (i.e. militia purposes).

[H2O Man]

23. John Lennon:

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head

[JacksonWest]

26. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment is meaningless(per this debate)

Anybody can debate the meaning of the 2nd amendment. However, the Supreme Court recognizes and gives deference to fundamental rights-rights that have a historical presence in this country. The right to an education, and the right to procreate are amongst these rights. Now, if you look at the history of this country, the practice and custom since it's inception has been to allow individuals the right to own firearms. IN fact, you would be hard pressed to find many people living outside of large urban areas who don't own a firearm.

So, yes, absolutely, the individual has the right to bear firearms. You can argue over what you think the constitution means-but its a waste of time. the court will look at the practice-and that will be weaved in with the decision. Since the constitution can be interpreted that individuals have the right to bear arms, and individuals have owned firearms for over two hundred years...it's a no brainer.

If you want to get rid of guns(which I don't support)please don't try and do so by getting "clever" with the 2nd amendment. Once you start eroding the portions of the constitution that you don't like, you pave the way to eradicate every part of it.

If you want to change the culture of guns and gun ownership in this country, you need to change the constitution.

[aikoaiko]

33. Yes, the 2nd is an individual right.

I anticipate the Federal courts having the re-address this issue in the near future. There are too many contradictory interpretations and laws.

[David__77]

34. With looming fascism, I will fight for a RKBA interpretation.

We have enough liberties being usurped without allowing the state a monopoly on arms.

[benEzra]

35. I would say "recognizes" or "protects" rather than "confers"...

but IMHO the right protected is indeed an individual one and not merely a collective/civic one.

[Katzenjammer]

40. Thanks for bringing that up. That's a non-trivial distinction (nt)

[shield20]

36. Of course it does...

1) Why a bill of rights? James Madison - author of the articles...

"I conclude, from this view of the subject, that it will be proper in itself, and highly politic, for the tranquillity of the public mind, and the stability of the Government, that we should offer something, in the form I have proposed, to be incorporated in the system of Government, as a declaration of the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE".

So...
2)
"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."

which he originally worded as follows:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

which originally stated by George mason said:
17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.


NO confusion about comas added by some scribe, or why "the WHY" may even be important but is a seperate issue, and NO confusion of whether a collective or individual right - it says what it means AND means what it says.

1st place, I don't see what is so damn confusing about "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is rather obvious it means "the people" because that is what it says - just like all the other ammendments using the term 'the people'. Why is it ever even being questioned? (except irrationaly by those who fear the armed citizen)

And "WHY" the people have is right, a right which is important enough to list in its own ammendment and not just count on it as a given in the 9th doesn't really matter does it - the article says "the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms should not be infringed". PERIOD!

2nd, even if one wants to try to prove otherwise because of the 1st phrase about the importance of a militia: - "Well regulated" means "well functioning" as in 'a "well regulated" clock keeps perfect time.' The cites from the Oxford English Dictionary span 1709 - 1894, suggest "well-regulated" meant something close to "in proper working order." Nothing about controlled, or limited, or...'infringed upon'

Militia is a form of CITIZEN-based defense; "citizen" as in "people" - not the federally mandated guard of 125 years later, & definitely not the standing Army, Navy, Marines etc. Clealry Madison wanted a militia that was well regulated AND well armed; and the PEOPLE to have the RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR arms.

[jody]

41. RKBA is for two purposes, first self-defense, second defense of state. SCOTUS said

government is not obligated to protect an individual unless she/he is in custody.

SCOTUS also said government can draft citizens into the military, i.e. make slaves of its citizens, to protect the state.

The issue then is self-defense.

Why would intelligent people voluntarily enter into a social contract like our Constitution giving government the authority (a) to prevent its citizens from arming themselves for self-defense, (b) to refuse to protect its citizens as individuals, and (c) to make slaves of its citizens to defend government?

No one can convince me that our founding fathers were stupid enough to create a government like I described above but apparently some people in the 21st century believe the founders of this great nation were that stupid.

If the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual's RKBA for self-defense, then the 9th Amendment does protect that right!

[twilliams82]

50. Yes it does

Anyone who would deny citizens of this right should'nt be considered Americans.

I dont think we should be changing the Constitution whenever it suits us(Patriot Act, Assault weapon ban, etc).

TW

[iverglas]

51. not even an attempt at consistency?

Exhibit A:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2675305&mesg_id=2676226

We can renew the Assault weapon Ban and truly make our country safe for our children.

Exhibit B:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=102&topic_id=2672139&mesg_id=2677298

I agree, leave the gun issue alone.

Why don't we pass a bill, that forces our government to keep the gun laws(no more restrictive gun laws) we have and be done with the gun issue.

Enforce the laws we have, and be done with this. We have enough issues(IRAQ, invasion of privacy, Gay marriage, abortion etc) without robbing our citizens of further rights.

Three posts, two in direct contradiction. Not even an E for effort, I'd say.

Anyone who would deny citizens of this right should'nt be considered Americans.

Anybody who writes a sentence as badly as that probably shouldn't be considered worth bothering about, but anybody who expresses a sentiment like that still might want to find somewhere more receptive to such obnoxious patriotism tests.

[piedmont]

52. good call, iverglass.

twilliams82, two posts completely at odds with one another out of a grand total of 5 career posts is danged suspicious. Care to explain?

[twilliams82]

53. Yep at least someone noticed

Iverglas I was trying to see if anyone cared about the 10 yr kidnapping of our 2nd Amendment rights.

Nice of you to notice and care, at least someone responded to it.

BTW I am against taking any 2nd amendment rights away from Americans.

I'm curious since you have took a interest in my post, do you think Americans should be allowed to own semi auto rifles with detachable magazines(30 rounds/bullets)and pistol grip??

I would just like a YES or NO answer and why.

TW

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[twilliams82]

55. Rake???

????

[piedmont]

56. So in that first post iverglas linked to...

you were what, trolling?

[twilliams82]

57. Not trolling

Trying to start a discussion.

TW

[piedmont]

58. Weird place and time to start that discussion.

There were four statements in that post. Only one of them disingenuous?

[iverglas]

61. Ah

And have you figured out yet whether "our senators voted against going into Iraq", as you were recently begging someone to tell you they (presumably Democratic Party senators) did?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2678019&mesg_id=2678161

Trying to start another discussion, I guess.

[iverglas]

60. what colour is orange: true or false?

A collection of words does not become a question that can be answered "yes" or "no" just because you put a question mark at the end of it.

do you think Americans should be allowed to own semi auto rifles with detachable magazines(30 rounds/bullets)and pistol grip??

Ordinarily, I do not express opinions about issues like this, because it is not my business to tell other people what their domestic public policy should be.

I will tell them about the benefits of a particular public policy -- say, universal single public payer health care, or handgun registration. I will express my belief that they deserve good public policies in such areas just as much as we who have them elsewhere do. I will provide information for people who support such policies in their own jurisdictions, to use in working toward those policies, or to refute inaccurate facts and fallacious arguments advanced by those who oppose them.

I won't express an opinion about what other people should do in matters that do not affect me / people in my jurisdiction ... unless directly asked to do so. And you have asked.

No, I do not believe that USAmericans should be permitted to own semi-automatic rifles with detachable 30-round magazines and pistol grips, unless, perhaps, they are specially licensed to do so and the weapons in question are registered (and thus may not be transferred to an unlicensed person and without registering the transfer).

I can't really think of any reason why a licence to possess such a weapon should be available, myself. Where I'm at, a "collector" may be licensed to possess semi-automatic firearms, but recent experience clearly shows that allowing members of the public to posess such weapons leads, whether because of non-compliance with rules governing transfers and secure storage or despite compliance with such requirements, to the weapons coming into the possession of ineligible people and being illegally trafficked and used to facilitate crimes and cause injury and death to others. My own opinion is that there is no private interest in possessing such weapons that overrides the serious and obvious public interest in ensuring that such weapons are not available to facilitate crimes and cause injury and death.


BTW I am against taking any 2nd amendment rights away from Americans.

I infer from your statement that you do not believe that anyone should be prohibited from possessing any firearm, and specifically that, e.g., persons with serious criminal convictions should not be prohibited from possessing firearms. Such persons are, after all, members of "the people" whose rights (whatever those rights might be) are guaranteed by the second amendment.


I was trying to see if anyone cared about the 10 yr kidnapping of our 2nd Amendment rights.

I would have to say that I find your explanation less than credible, and that piedmont's characterization appears to be more accurate.

[S_B_Jackson]

59. According to the US Supreme Court the 2nd Amendment grants nothing

The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."

US v. Cruikshank (1875)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=92&invol=542

[jody]

62. 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose' is an inalienable right! What will SCOTUS say next?

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States.

As so many have pointed out here on DU, self-defense is a personal problem.

[Speak soft carry Big]

63. Any honest man...

Any honest man without an agenda plainly sees The People in all the Amendments as relating to the individual. This is as those who wrote it intended.

It pains me to see how their unique vision has been perverted for political expediency for so long.

[Tither]

64. Proof of 2nd Amendment as Individual Right

http://www.ohioccw.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3798&Itemid=83

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense. ….. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms…”
--Alexander Hamilton, Essay 28, The Federalist Papers

The American Revolutionary War officially began when British soldiers came to the peaceful hamlets of Lexington and Concord to disarm our founding fathers. Little did they know, that action would spark an arduous war that they (the most powerful army on Earth) could not win. On that day, our founding fathers chose to fight instead of live under tyranny. They were joined by multitudes of their fellow countrymen who laid down their lives in order to secure the precious freedoms we hold so dear. When the battle for personal liberty was finished, our new nation’s leaders did their very best to write a historically renowned Constitution. However, “We the People” refused to sign it. The fear was that the new Constitution would replace one British oppressor with a collective oppressive government of their own making. Our Constitutional framers asked the people what was needed to ratify the new document. The answer they received was a set of iron clad and unmovable guarantees written directly into the Constitution! Some framers felt that it would be dangerous to enumerate some of these provisions and exclude others. This is proven by Alexander Hamilton's writings in Essay 84 of The Federalist Papers.

Our Founders believed our rights were inalienable, obvious, or "self-evident” and said so in the Declaration of Independence. They also believed that governments do not have rights. Instead, they have delegated powers that are granted to them by the people being governed. This position is supported by the framers philosophy of rights that can be found in the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Madison, Hamilton, and others, which discussed "natural rights" in some detail. In speaking of this philosophy, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
The Sacred Rights of Mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchment, or musty records. They are written with a sun beam in whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.
A reaffirmation of this principle can be seen in reflecting upon the very words 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 inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The U.S. State Department officially recognizes this by saying:
In these memorable words of the American Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson set forth a fundamental principle upon which democratic government is founded. Governments in a democracy do not grant the fundamental freedoms enumerated by Jefferson; governments are created to protect those freedoms that every individual possesses by virtue of his or her existence.

In their formulation by the Enlightenment philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries, inalienable rights are God-given natural rights. These rights are not destroyed when civil society is created, and neither society nor government can remove or "alienate" them.
Now that it has been sufficiently shown that the intention for the Bill of Rights was to ensure that government could not infringe upon these innate rights, we will take a closer look at the Second Amendment specifically. In recounting how the Second Amendment was drafted, David T. Hardy recreates this scene:
His first step was to obtain a pamphlet which conveniently listed all state proposals. The problem became one of editing; out of hundreds of proposals. Madison's decision to include a right to arms in his federal bill of rights is hardly surprising. Such a right had been demanded in virtually every call for a bill of rights; indeed, it had received twice the number of demands accorded freedom of speech. Language praising the militia had received much less support, essentially having been appended to the right to arms clause in Virginia and the two following conventions. But an adaptation of the Virginia/New York/North Carolina wording combining the two held unusual promise. One of Madison's major objectives was to "bring in" North Carolina. He hoped to convince it to ratify the Constitution by offering an acceptable bill of rights. North Carolina could hardly object to a nearly verbatim acceptance of its demand. . And so the awkward wording of the 2nd was born along with a new nation. All of the above is the philosophy of our Framers, and part of the body of work known as the Standard Model of the 2nd Amendment.
Historians have long discussed these issues with Constitutional law professors. MIT Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm says, “The evidence has convinced our leading constitutional scholars, among them Lawrence Tribe, Akhil Amar, and Leonard Levy, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.”

Harvard's Laurence Tribe says, "The Fourteenth Amendment, which makes parts of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, reflected a broad agreement that bearing arms was a 'privilege' of each citizen."

Fellow Harvard liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz agrees and scolds fellow liberals for twisting the words of the Second Amendment in a way that could come back to haunt them. "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming that it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don't see the danger of the big picture." He adds, "They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

Additionally, we can look to UCLA’s Eugene Volokh’s testimony on the Second Amendment:
The Text of the Amendment Refers to an Individual Right. The Second Amendment, like the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, refers to a "right of the people," not a right of the states or a right of the National Guard. The First Amendment guarantees the people's right to assemble; the Fourth Amendment protects the people's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; the Ninth Amendment refers to the people's unenumerated rights. These rights are clearly individual -- they protect "the right of the people" by protecting the right of each person. This strongly suggests that the similarly-worded Second Amendment likewise secures an individual right.

Faced with the obvious truth of our Framers’ intent, I believe that the Supreme Court will have no choice but to ignore any Presidents, treaties, Stari Decides, or any other legal guiding principle contrary to these views. The Court simply has no legal authority to do otherwise. No act, no law, nor any court ruling may change our Constitution. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual right and must be respected! That is the law of the land.

For additional info, please see: A CRITICAL GUIDE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT by Glenn Harlan Reynolds.

[Navgowner]

66. Yes

[guntard]

76. The Constitutionally guaranteed RKBA has passed on

Today I decided to stir the shit a little.

Have a look. Stick around if you like what you see.

[iverglas]

77. Huh

Guess who agrees with you.

That being said, America still remains one of the few places in the world where ordinary citizens are free to arm themselves for whatever legal purposes they choose. While the Constitutional guarantees no longer matter, this is a civil right it is still important to preserve. We can do this with careful and considered argument, since the facts are all on our side ... .

We will not retain and expand our gun rights by making impassioned references to an irrelevant Constitutional Amendment. ...

Honestly, guntards should just STFU about the Second Amendment.

Slackmaster, as I recall. And me, on the argument, if not the reasons for making it.

Acquiring and posessing firearms, like acquiring and possessing pizza, is simply an exercise of freedom, at its most basic.

As such, it is subject to limitation just as any other exercise of a right or freedom is, and any limitation on its exercise is subject to the same rules regarding justification as any limitation on the exercise of any other right or freedom.

You may not tell lies to a court, on pain of punishment, and you may not tote a pistol into a court, on pain of punishment. That sort of thing.

However, as to that one bit:

That being said, America still remains one of the few places in the world where ordinary citizens are free to arm themselves for whatever legal purposes they choose.

... well, you haven't got that quite right.

Speaking only for Canada, we are entirely free to acquire and possess firearms, subject to restrictions on the types of firearms, as there also are in the US, for whatever purpose we choose. There is no test for "purpose" when acquiring and possessing firearms, in the US or anywhere else. Someone who meets the criteria for acquisition and possession (there are ineligible people in both countries, based on the domestic rules) may acquire and possess, period. No one knows what his/her purpose in doing so is, and no one could possibly know.

In both Canada and the US, for instance, there are firearms that may be acquired only by persons licensed as "collectors". However, once licensed, a "collector" may acquire firearms for any purpose s/he likes. A collector's purpose in acquiring an otherwise restricted or prohibited firearm may be to rob a bank. Who knows?

[guntard]

78. Licensing

All very grammatically correct. I have read your stuff. You are eloquent in your support for restrictions, licensing, stamps, laws, arm tattoos, whatever it takes to regulate firearms ownership. You have yet, however, to make a case for why this is necessary or desirable.

The only reason I can possibly think of is because you distrust a free people.

[iverglas]

79. yup, that's me

The only reason I can possibly think of is because you distrust a free people.

I distrust Canadians and Brits and Norwegians and South Africans, and those damned French.

I certainly distrust citizens of the US. When a people runs around electing George Bushes to be its head of government and head of state, who wouldn't? It is wise to be wary of those who show evidence of larcenousness, or looniness. They'll invade you to get your stuff, or for no reason at all.

Arm tattoos, eh? I certainly support the right of people in prisons to get 'em without fear of disease or (excessive) disfigurement:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=aeccca6c-0c38-46d3-b906-7b3d77c22ba2&k=42101

Of course, our particular loony/larcenous government of the moment doesn't agree, so that's off for now.

But then, only 36.3% of us who voted, voted for them, so you needn't start distrusting us yet.

[iverglas]

80. oh, by the way

Your literary critique of my work is of course fascinating, as is your own quite literary characterization of it, but I'd thought you might express an opinion on what I actually said:

Acquiring and posessing firearms, like acquiring and possessing pizza, is simply an exercise of freedom, at its most basic.

As such, it is subject to limitation just as any other exercise of a right or freedom is, and any limitation on its exercise is subject to the same rules regarding justification as any limitation on the exercise of any other right or freedom.

No, eh?

[guntard]

81. Justification

As such, it is subject to limitation just as any other exercise of a right or freedom is, and any limitation on its exercise is subject to the same rules regarding justification as any limitation on the exercise of any other right or freedom.

Nope. A free people do not have to justify activities that don't harm anyone else. On the contrary, it is up to governments to justify why they should restrict the activities of individuals. That governments go ahead and regulate activities without any reasonable need to do so doesn't make it right. As for why they do that, I suggest you pick up a copy of George Orwell's 1984 for some insights in that direction.

Eating pizza is a good, if facile, example (I am not aware of any legal restrictions on the consumption of pizza in North America). A better example is procreation. Procreation is a major undertaking, and anyone who goes into it irresponsibly can cause serious, life-long damage to other human beings. And yet it remains completely unregulated almost everywhere. And still we mere humans manage to muddle through. Furthuremore, I am not aware of any organized calls for government issued reproduction licenses.

But anyway, we are talking at cross purposes here. You already declared you are in favor of restricting the activities of individuals because you don't trust people (of certain nationalities) to exercise their freedoms responsibly. I, on the other hand, do, as do most real liberals.

[iverglas]

83. good lord; read much?

Once more, with emphasis to assist you:

me: As such, it is subject to limitation just as any other exercise of a right or freedom is, and any limitation on its exercise is subject to the same rules regarding justification as any limitation on the exercise of any other right or freedom.

thee: Nope. A free people do not have to justify activities that don't harm anyone else. On the contrary, it is up to governments to justify why they should restrict the activities of individuals.


Lordy. What did you imagine I was saying?

any limitation on its exercise
is subject to the same rules regarding justification
as any limitation
on the exercise of any other right or freedom.

How could you possibly respond to that as if I had said that anyone had to justify his/her activities?

I'd be embarrassed to even think such a thing. Surely someone who knows me as well as you seem to think you do would know this.


Eating pizza is a good, if facile, example (I am not aware of any legal restrictions on the consumption of pizza in North America).

Actually, there are all sorts.

Pizza providers generally have to be licensed, by a municipality, and are subject to inspection for compliance with all sorts of rules.

Yup, you can make your own pizza. But unless you grow your own ingredients (an activity that would come with its own set of rules, like what pesticides you may use, and whether you may raise and slaughter livestock on your property), you're going to be running into rules when you go to buy them, too.

You may probably not eat pizza on public transit, and retail businesses may probably prohibit you from bring pizza into their establishments.

Etc.

Procreation is a major undertaking, and anyone who goes into it irresponsibly can cause serious, life-long damage to other human beings.

Not to any human beings who exist at the time of the act that leads to procreation. Most of such acts not leading to procreation in any event. Perhaps if sexual congress always led to procreation, and were never engaged in for any other purpose or reason, it might be more amenable to regulation.

As it stands, what we'd be regulating is sexual activity, and that's a whole nother matter.

Of course, we could also regulate who may or may not bring forth offspring once sexual activity did lead to that possibility, by compelling/prohibiting delivery/abortion. It's been tried. By the rules we generally apply on both sides of the border, having to do with things like the right to life, liberty and security of the person / privacy and when interferences with the exercise of those rights are justified, it isn't justified.


You already declared you are in favor of restricting the activities of individuals because you don't trust people (of certain nationalities) to exercise their freedoms responsibly. I, on the other hand, do, as do most real liberals.

Hahahaha. You're a card, you are.

And of course, I'm not a liberal. Google Phil Ochs if you're confused on that concept.

Oh, all right, here ya go, again.

Love Me, I'm A Liberal
by Phil Ochs

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the Democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The last person to trust is a liberal, you see.

[piedmont]

82. Yes, and no need to re-write anything

It does mean we have the right, as individuals, to bear arms. Just like all the other amendments that include the word "people" refer to the people on an individual, not collective, basis. That first clause doesn't matter anyway. It just gives the intent behind the action, but the action is contained in the final part of the sentence.