Another right may bite the dust

[Minrott]

[Lueyen]

I appreciate your opinion but it is just that, your opinion and your spin. It is open to interpretation, that is a fact, and it can be spun fore and against your opinion. The simple fact is the 2nd amendment has not be ratified by our supreme court and that makes it plausible to ban all firearms for the civilian populace (and yes that would be extreme crazy but fact none the less).

You know if you hadn't been around for quite a while, I'd suspect you were a troll and didn't honestly believe some of the things you say. I believe our public school system failed you miserably.

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

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" - The justification clause, something found in not only in the U.S Constitution, but also in many state constitutions when addressing the rights of individuals. Why have a justification clause? It stresses the importance of why a right is enumerated. Note that is enumerate, specifically list, NOT give. The rights stated in the bill of rights are not granted to us by government, nor are they the only rights we have, they are a specific list with the intent of "putting them in stone". Giving the reason behind specifically listing a right does not make that right dependent on the justification. But even if this were the case, the process to change these rights is not through the institution of additional laws, but via a constitutional amendment, good luck getting our federal government to amend the bill of rights in such a way to remove one or more, it's much akin to a holy grail.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." - The statement of rights clause. What is the subject of this clause? If you say "people" or "arms" then you fail. "right" is the subject. "people" and "arms" are used to describe what right it is that the clause is about. The enumeration of the right is inferred, it all ready exists and is only being specifically mentioned to guarantee that it is not infringed upon.

The US Constitution (including the Bill of Rights), has already been ratified. It is not the responsibility of nor within the power of the Supreme Court to ratify it. It became binding law when ratified by the states.

I don't get it though, this issue is such a sweet spot for some folks but they never seem to be consistent. We lose minor first amendment rights, we lose "minor" rights of privacy, etc, but this little hot button, o noes, not my guns
sorry, some of that was flame bait.

He has a point in one thing though. How many people even on here (Hi lueyen!) have argued positions that accepted loss of civil liberties with regards to things like the patriot act, warrant less wiretapping, etc. which ARE erosions of our rights, and they are OK with that because it "Protecks dis kuntry from der terrerists!" Yet as soon as gun rights are mentioned, suddenly they are inflexible strict constructionists.

Bit of a dichotomy, don't you think?

-Arlos

I'll respond to both of these together. I have argue that mistakes made by law enforcement in what is presented as probably cause do not mean the law requiring it is invalid. I don't recall ever commenting much on the Patriot Act it's self. Like the Military Commissions Act there are some parts that I take issue with, however I do not categorically condemn all aspects of either. It is possible I've pointed out that what is often referred to as "warrant less wiretapping", is not technically warrant less or that members of the FISA court and members of Congress from both parties were aware of the surveillance programs prior to their activation. In regards to the MCA, I did argue extensively that it was not violation the Constitution as the rights guaranteed therein apply to the people of the United States and not foreign nationals. What you view as an apparent contradiction comes from your own view that these things are violations of civil rights, a view that I do not necessarily agree with. I am not in one case arguing if a right exists and in the other arguing it does, but arguing that it is not a violation of those rights in the former.

Essentially the pro-ban argument is that the right does not exist or is contingent upon the justification clause. I haven't seen anyone here argue that if we accept it is the right of the people to keep and bare arms regardless of circumstance that a gun ban is constitutional.

[Evermore]

He has a point in one thing though. How many people even on here (Hi lueyen!) have argued positions that accepted loss of civil liberties with regards to things like the patriot act, warrantless wiretapping, etc. which ARE erosions of our rights, and they are OK with that because it "Protecks dis kuntry from der terrerists!" Yet as soon as gun rights are mentioned, suddenly they are inflexible strict constructionists.

Bit of a dichotomy, don't you think?

-Arlos

Not me. I'm anti all of that.

Anyone who would trade liberty for the guise of security is a fuckhole.

Here Here

[ClakarEQ]

Leu, whatever LOL, you're a lost cause in this as you are too close minded to see what the realities are. Keep living the dream in your head, cause that's the only place you'll have left to live it, and yet I'll carry on.

To get the insults out of the way:
You must have some level of insecurity because you feel required to insult folks that don't agree with you, that is an unfortunate trait you have there, hopefully you can grow out of it.

And yes or no to the questions would be nice, you must be a lawyer or studied law because your posts reek of legal speak LOL, are you, do I get a cookie?
/insults off

"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 "right" can be spun just as I spun it regardless of your opinion, and it is your opinion, an interpretation of the words written.

So Leu, let me ask this, you actually believe the 2nd was written to arm a chaos civilian populace, you actually believe this? You don't think it was meant to be organized, you know, a militia by the very definition?

Why then do we have gun laws at all? The very requirement for me to apply, be tested on, and then granted access to a weapons permit, the delay, etc, how can any of this be legal?

How is it legal for a felon to be barred from owning a gun the day after time served (or can't vote, you know that is a right as well)?

You make it sound like you can't lose your rights, perhaps you should open your eyes.

What you percieve to be a right is only a priviledge that can be taken away at a later date.

[Harrison]

Why then do we have gun laws at all? The very requirement for me to apply, be tested on, and then granted access to a weapons permit, the delay, etc, how can any of this be legal?

How is it legal for a felon to be barred from owning a gun the day after time served (or can't vote, you know that is a right as well)?

You make it sound like you can't lose your rights, perhaps you should open your eyes.

What you percieve to be a right is only a priviledge that can be taken away at a later date.

Wow, just wow...

Do you TRY to smoke as much as you can before you post or do you just naturally come off as a retarded, uneducated hippie?

The second amendment IS a right. It is not a "priviledge". The only way it will become otherwise is if your ilk has its way, much like many other rights we are afforded as citizens.

[Tikker]

err, he's right


all he's saying is that the piece of paper you worship can be changed if the courts swing a certain direction.

[Minrott]

Clakar, since you seem to be under the impression that this was never heard by the SCOTUS, and that it's a willy nilly right never "ratified," I suggest you look at United States v. Miller, 1939.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Emphasis added for you.

The only regulatory you may place on my right to own and possess arms is perhaps a physical evaluation on my capabilities in performing militia duty if called upon.

All current federal gun control is illegal.

[Arlos]

To be pedantic, however, the Constitution never enumerates WHICH firearms are protected. If you wished to be truly strict, you could argue that it only protects musketry, as that's the only firearms which the founding fathers were familiar with.

Nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it specify WHICH arms are protected. It could easily be argued that as long as people have access to hunting rifles and shotguns that they most certainly are free to bear arms. There is no clause stating "Thou shalt be allowed to bear the latest of military hardware".

Personally, I would have been quite happy if that particular clause in the Bill never existed. I don't feel it is in any way necessary in this day and age, and would quite cheerfully vote for an amendment repealing it. Until that day, however, the right to bear at least some kinds of arms IS a right enumerated under the constitution, and thus my personal feelings aside, I feel that it must be upheld, though I disagree with more rabid gun fanatics interpretations of it.

-Arlos

[Minrott]

Sorry, while the 2nd itself does not enumerate exactly which arms are protected, the SCOTUS did. As I posted above.

Before someone gets all butt hurt about "bazookas" and RPG's, those are ordnance, not arms.

Also, if you did bother to listen to, or read the deliberation in Heller, it's the general position of the Justices that "a man walking about hunting" is not bearing arms. Arms designates the military arms of the day.

If you wanted to ban something, you'd have more constitutional grounds to ban over under shotguns and single shot rifles, as they're not arms. Your personal opinion to this may vary of course, however your position has no judicial precedence while mine does.

Rabid. Heh. Are flag burners and "In God We Trust" petitioners rabid supporters of the First as well?

Typical ACLU bullshit. Support the ones you love, tear down the ones you don't.

[Arlos]

Actually, SCOTUS hasn't ruled yet, that I've seen. They've taken arguments, but I haven't seen their ruling on the DC case anywhere, and I'm quite sure that it would have been splashed everywhere once they've made it. So, while I think I quite expect them to overturn the law, it has NOT been decided yet, so far as I've seen.

-Arlos

[Minrott]

I'm referring to the arguments they made during the deliberation, which of course I'll admit are non-binding. However, refer to Miller v US for a definition of arms.

[Arlos]

Yeah, but if you hold with that ruling, that means women don't have the right to own firearms. For that matter, neither would anyone missing an arm or leg, or otherwise physically ineligible for the armed forces. Given their definition of militia being restricted to MALES physically capable of military duty...

Also remember that that court was well aware of the ban of machine gun sales to civilians, given that that ban was enacted in 1934, 5 years before whatever case that was before SCOTUS. Had they wished to overturn that ban at that time, they certainly could have, and they would have been highly aware of it since it was so recent.

Since they did NOT, I tend to believe that since that particular court did not quibble with the machine gun ban, they must have felt it legal. Therefore, since that court didn't overturn it, combined with the definition of "militia" that would imply women could not legally own firearms means that I doubt that the current court will use that as a guide for their current case.

I actually fully expect the court to overturn the handgun ban, but I would be shocked beyond belief if a subsequent case were filed that overturned the ban on automatic weapons.

-Arlos

[Minrott]

The 1934 NFA in no way bans machine guns. It calls for registration and a $200 tax stamp to own them, just as it does for the Short Barreled Shotgun (SBS) that Miller was in possession of. Just like the $200 tax stamp I paid to the ATF and the Form 1 with my photo and fingerprints for the Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) that I own.

It wasn't until 1986 that Congress enacted 922(o) that disallows the BATFE from issuing any new tax stamps for machine guns.


The court ruled in 1939 that Miller was the unlawful owner of a SBS, because they didn't think an SBS was a "military firearm." They issued an opinion, but had to kick the case back down to a lower court because Miller was killed before he could appear. This is unfortunate because over 14,000 SBS were ordered by the US State Dept for WW1, which of course makes them "military in nature." If Miller had been alive to fight the 1934 NFA, based on the opinion that was submitted by SCOTUS, the entire law would most likely been declared unconstitutional.


Again, the 1934 NFA does not ban any weapon, not even hand grenades or RPG's. It simply calls for their registration and taxation.

[Gaazy]

Someone needs to teach Clakar how to insult people. Sorry dude, but you just suck at it. Especially when you end one in /insult off, it just doesnt...work...

[Tossica]

If whether or not you can or should own machine guns is your main concern in life, you have serious social issues and have no right voting on any issue that might have an effect on a fellow human being.

[Minrott]

Ownership of machine guns is far from my main concern in life. If it was, I would shell out the $15k for a pre-86 transferable M16.

My main concern in life is my liberty, something I'd never expect a looter to understand.

[Lueyen]

Leu, whatever LOL, you're a lost cause in this as you are too close minded to see what the realities are. Keep living the dream in your head, cause that's the only place you'll have left to live it, and yet I'll carry on.

Convince me then. Explain to me how it is that the right referred to is not a right? It's not that I'm closed minded, I've evaluated the notion that due to a mention of militia in the 2nd the stated right is not guaranteed, but subject to being granted due to necessity of function. Based on the historical context, the 2nd amendments place in the constitution, the actual text of the 2nd amendment I flat out reject the idea based on logical deduction. But let me make things really really simple for you. Ask yourself why in the Bill of Rights, the second would even be there if it were not a right?

To get the insults out of the way:
You must have some level of insecurity because you feel required to insult folks that don't agree with you, that is an unfortunate trait you have there, hopefully you can grow out of it.

Nope no insecurities, and if you think I was trying to insult you for some self gratifying purpose you're wrong. I do hope in pointing out your ignorance, or your ignorance of your own ignorance that perhaps I will prompt you to take it upon yourself to rectify the situation. Through your own assertions it is apparent that you do not have even a basic understanding of the principals of our government.

And yes or no to the questions would be nice, you must be a lawyer or studied law because your posts reek of legal speak LOL, are you, do I get a cookie?
/insults off

No and no.

"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 "right" can be spun just as I spun it regardless of your opinion, and it is your opinion, an interpretation of the words written.

"The spot is red."

If you say that statement says the spot is blue and I say the statement says that the spot is red, it's not my interpretation or spin it's that I'm correct and you are not.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the spot is red"

Yep the spot is still red.

So Leu, let me ask this, you actually believe the 2nd was written to arm a chaos civilian populace, you actually believe this?

You don't think it was meant to be organized, you know, a militia by the very definition?

You are confusing "well regulated" with organized. The militia of the day was not organized and not formerly trained. It was not something akin to our national guard of today. I'd have answered yes or no but I suspect you would have drawn inference from that to agree with your statement. Much as you would not likely answer the question "Do you enjoy being a blithering idiot" with a simple yes or no because you don't agree with the basis for the question, I too will not answer with a simple yes or no.

Why then do we have gun laws at all? The very requirement for me to apply, be tested on, and then granted access to a weapons permit, the delay, etc, how can any of this be legal?

It's not legal.

How is it legal for a felon to be barred from owning a gun the day after time served (or can't vote, you know that is a right as well)?

You make it sound like you can't lose your rights, perhaps you should open your eyes.

What you percieve to be a right is only a priviledge that can be taken away at a later date.

One could also argue that imprisonment or the death penalty violates civil rights as well, but to do so you have to ignore that fact that there is justification in doing so. Essentially, when you take action that makes you a danger to society you surrender your rights. Life and liberty are rights and not privileges, Life and liberty do not become privileges simply because we have imprisonment or the death penalty.

[Narrock]

I agree with Lueyen.

[ClakarEQ]

Someone needs to teach Clakar how to insult people. Sorry dude, but you just suck at it. Especially when you end one in /insult off, it just doesnt...work...

QFT, insulting is not my game, very true, I do suck at it LOL, I'd be the first to agree .

Tikker /cheer thanks, that is ultimatly the cliff notes of this entire thread.

Leu, you should study phsycology or something because you insult for enjoyment and you don't even know it, or don't care to admit it, otherwise you wouldn't do it. You do it to make yourself feel superior, and again you're too blind to see it because you are the one doing it. So look in the mirror and pat yourself on the back, everyone likes you, you're amongst friends here , you don't need to prove anything to us, bla bla bla.

You say red, I say blue, what I've said so far is true, the 2nd can be spun against you LOL, nice, that rhymes

[Harrison]

Seriously, lay off the drugs and get firefox to do your spell-checks.

[brinstar]

color can be subjective too, douchebags

(not everyone has fully-functioning rods and cones, you know)

[Harrison]

I lol'd being nearly colorblind myself.

[Lueyen]

color can be subjective too, douchebags

(not everyone has fully-functioning rods and cones, you know)

I had to laugh also, I love your posts brin I really do 8). Keep in mind however that instead of saying stop signs are blue, we explain to people that they have a deficiency, and they generally accept it instead of insisting that a stop sign is blue.

ClakarEQ, I find it very entertaining that you are trying to psychoanalyze me, I should warn you however that the last person who tried to do so was a psych major and she didn't get very far. As far as Tikker backing you up, keep in mind that the general base concepts on which the United States was founded are foreign to him (yes pun intended), he doesn't get that our rights are not granted by government but ordained by our creator.

[Gypsiyee]

As far as Tikker backing you up, keep in mind that the general base concepts on which the United States was founded are foreign to him (yes pun intended), he doesn't get that our rights are not granted by government but ordained by our creator.

I disagree with this logic on a pretty large scale, and kind of get sick of reading it so often from so many people

just because someone resides in another country doesn't mean they don't know or can't learn just as much about our country as we do. We learn it from history books and reading just like anyone else, and I, personally, think it's pretty ignorant to assume that just because you're foreign it means you're incapable of knowing what the states laws are.

any douchebag can pick up a book or a newspaper.. it doesn't matter where they live.

I mean after all - you support the war don't you? How can you chastise someone for critiquing our county and not being a native while you support invading another country that we're not native of to 'improve' them?

How they got where they are and their policies are foreign to us by the same logic you use, so in all reality anyone who thinks foreign citizens know nothing of our country should have never supported the war because we know nothing of those countries either.

[Eziekial]

Don't get your panties all in a bunch, Gyp. He was speaking in reference to a viewpoint and how one's nationality affects it. We have a unique system in this country and it stands to reason that a foreigner would have a very different view of any laws given a different fundamental basis for which they believe those laws to be derived from. Wow, that's clear like mud but I'm too lazy to rewrite it. But like I said earlier in this thread and Lue restated...

our rights are given to us by our Creator.