I suppose you would, because it would allow you to keep evading my point that specific gun ownership legislation, like other legislation, should be based on the specific conditions prevailing in the specific society in which the legislation is to be enacted.
You would prefer to be able to go on justifying your positions by vague appeals to any kind of hypothetical future apocalypse scenarios, no matter how absurd or vaguely delineated.
Nope. Gun ownership legislation should be crafted to be relevant to the conditions currently existing in the society where the guns are.
I think you’re really persevering in your efforts to refocus the conversation on vague speculative suggestions, none of which in the least refutes my point.
Honest question, were laws which limited the highwayman federal or state laws? Could it be that the Founding Fathers were counting on permissible state laws to act as the control on gun ownership/usage and that is why the amendment is written in such absolutist terms?
As you are our resident etymologist, SenorBeef, I’d like to have your explanation of the following. I came across this this morning, and was puzzled, since you clearly explained for us all how well-regulated meant “functioning well.”
Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833)
This clearly says that a well-regulated militia is important, but the problem is that people tend towards indifference to discipline and a desire to be free from regulations. Ultimately contempt for discipline, regulation and organization, he predicts, will in fact undermine all the protection intended by the Second Amendment.
Organization, regulation, discipline. Was this justice, writing in 1833, ignorant of your fact that well-regulated doesn’t mean these things?
I’m leaning towards the premise that they just plain fucked it up. But be that as it may, the notion that we are irrevocably and irrefutably bound by the notions of an 18th Century society is just plain silly. Whoever is directly responsible for screwing ye olde pooch is long dead. He has passed on, rung down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible. This is an ex-patriot!
Staets rights existed before the civil war. The civil war ceratinly established that states aren’t allowed to seceded from the union after 100 years of getting their own way just because things aren’t going their way anymore, but states rights still exist. We still protect states against unfunded mandates, and while the notion of state sovereignty may seem antiquated to you, it is baked into our constitution.
I was pointing out that the federal government is not infallible and is capable of using unjustified force against its own citizens. One day the tyranny from the center may justify restance by the states or are you under the ijmpression that the federal government can’t act unconstitutionally? Did you feel taht way when bush was president?
Did you miss my cite to wikipedia? It DIDN’T turn teh militia into the national guard. it turned the ORGANIZED MILITIA into teh antional guard. Teh militia remained defined as every able bodied male between 18 and 45 (see vietnam draft). Hopefully this has cured you of both your hubris and your ignorance.
U mad bro?
Are you upset that even Feinstein isn’t talking about an AWB anymore? Don’t cry, it’ll be OK, it really has no effect on gun violence in America. On the bright side, it looks like we will get universal background checks and I hope a national gun registry and national gun license.
Right, because you never had a typo in your posts. Pfft.
Did you really have that much trouble deciphering what I was saying?
I don’t know what youa re trying to say but general welfare doesn’t mean what you think it means.
The words general welfare appear twice in the constitution. once in the preamble and once in the taxing and spending power. The use of general welfare in the preamble outlines the purpose of the constitution and doesn’t provide any legal authority whatsoever. The only other use of the words general welfare (and the one that everyone is referrign to when they refer to the general welfare clause) is in the taxing and spending outlined in Article 1 section 8.
That’s how it works at the moment. The NRA dead set on trying to arm people denied the rights of citizens? Big government seems pretty intent on either locking 'em up or kicking 'em out of the country. Can blame all our economic woes on them too. Sounds kinda familiar.
But you are not bound at all. There is a method you can use to amend your Constitution when needed. I believe it has even been used several times. Until then though, don’t you think you should be bound by the law as written?
How is it written, though? What does it mean, and, if there are differing views of its meaning, how should they be resolved? Should we understand its intent according to the late 18th century, or to the early 21st? What you say sounds simple until you try it.
As it is written, it is an absurdity. Disregarding all the hubbub about what “regulated” means, “infringe” has a meaning that is entirely clear. But those rights are “infringed” and pretty much always have been. And I have little to no doubt that the Founding Fuckups implicitly acknowledged that, even as they indulged themselves in rhetorical devices.
Had you asked them directly “Should lunatics, felons and persons in rebellion be allowed to have firearms because their right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed?” they would have said that your question was silly, of course not. They probably would have pointed out that the amendment is clearly intended to refer to well-regulated militia. I can readily accept that such was indeed their purpose, but they worded it clumsily and created a corrosive ambiguity.
Unless I am very much mistaken, by law and custom it accepted that we shall gently trim those words “shall not be infringed” to mean “OK, just a little, here and there, as necessary”. Tommy guns and sawed off shotguns were made illegal, if the Supreme Court threw those laws out because of “infringement”, I’ve not heard of it.
So why then are we required to change the Constitution to reflect an accepted fact? If we can legitimately ignore the words in order to ban tommy guns from civilian ownership, why can we not ban “assault weapons” or large capacity clips or even handguns, if we so choose?
Now, before we are deafened by the roar of twisting panties, let me emphasize that I have no such agenda, my fervent admiration for Hitler notwithstanding. Merely that for practical and legal purposes, the 2nd Amendment is rendered moot by its own ambiguous wording, and caterwauling about the sacredness of the Constitution is just so much sturm und drang. Hmmm, let’s make that “much ado about nothing”.
The thing that has always puzzled me about 2nd Amendment debates and court rulings is how the 3rd is so clear cut and uncontroversial. The Quartering Acts of 1765 and 1774 clearly led to the 3rd.
To the Founding Fathers, perhaps the 2nd was just as clear. The 2nd was preceded by the various Powder Alarms in New England, the Gunpowder Affair in Virginia and Gage’s actions that triggered the Battles of Lexington and Concord - all attempts by an external and tyrannical government to interfere with the colonial militias.
Were there significant actions by the British or Colonial governments to disarm individual citizens?
Which leads right back into my original question. Were the laws prohibiting use by lunatics, felons, etc. state or federal laws? If they were state laws then they were permitted prior to 2010 incorporation of the 2nd Amendment. If they were federal prohibitions then I guess your judicial system has shown an unfortunate inclination to ignore the plain meaning (as you admit ‘shall not infringe’ has) and replace it with whatever seems to feel right at the time.
Personally, I think you would have been much better off if the amendment had been read as absolute. It would have brought the vast majority of people up short and you could work toward reasonable and we’ll articulated regulations so everyone knew where they stood. As it stands you have the amendment written as absolute, the vast majority of people agreeing that it is not, in fact an absolute right, but with no guidelines as to what reasonable restrictions are.
What difference would it make? From Article 6 (which even predates the 2nd): “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
The supremacy clause, it’s called.
IOW there ain’t no such damn thing as states’ rights, and never were none neither.
No, it ain’t written as absolute, and there are reasonable restrictions in its own damn text. :dubious:
Not perzackly, if we are sufficiently picky. The justifying clause does not negate the concluding clause. They offer that they are doing this thing because so and so about militia but the concluding clause states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. Full stop.
I don’t think those men were stupid, but they simply did not examine their wording with sufficient rigor. Perhaps one of the few situations wherein more lawyers would have been helpful. They fucked up, they worded an absolute when they didn’t really intend to.
But, so what? By law and custom, we have decided to ignore that unfortunate mishap. As noted above and elsewhere, firearms are regulated, and damn sure bethca infringed, as in the case of the Tommy gun.
If we can ban the Thompson submachine gun without having to change the Constitution, then why are we helpless to regulate “assault rifles”? By law and custom, we have already nullified the 2nd Amendment. We have neutralized the absolute prohibition on infringement, the only question becomes reasonable and responsible regulation.
Or, at least in theory, we could resolve to return to the original intent of the Founders, and pretend to believe that their wording reflects that. We could hold that any infringement whatsoever is forbidden and that the state has no legal right to interfere with any citizens possession of a firearm. I modestly submit that a zombie apocalypse would be preferable.
Are you really so ignorant that you think this is the only context. The concept of states rights existed since the formation of the country. In fact our first attempt at a perfect union was a failure because the states right component was too strong (see articles of confederation) so it was reduced but it certainly wan’t eliminated.
What are you talking about? How does the Japanese internment disprove that your government is not infallible?
Or did you mean that our government cannot be resisted through armed force?
The federal government wasn’t the one acting unconstitutionally in that case. Is your argument that if the government does turn tyrannical we would all just have to live with it?
So no answers when someone points out your hypocrisy?
Yes. I know this is the pit but your only argument is insults you might consider whether your arguments have any merit.
You sure its not your inability to understand what you read? rad it again and get back to me.
On second thought, read the constitution before you get back to me.
Only to the extent they are made in pursuance of the the Constitution.
The hierarchy is the Constitution then federal law then state law.
So what do you think the 10th amendment is about? Or is that another part of the Constitution that your copy doesn’t have?
Look up unfunded mandates while you are at it.
“But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”
-Alexander Hamilton (speaking of the supremacy clause)
I don’t agree with every position held by states rights folks but to pretend that no such thing exists is just ignorance.
And the first amendment says that congress shall make no law… … abridging the freedom of speech… … [or lobbying].
How is this language any less absolute than the second amendment?
Or, they knew that a body of law existed through which this language would be interpreted
You can make a much better argument about the state interest in banning machine guns during prohibition than you could about “assault weapons” where you have no argument at all other than irrational fear of scary looking guns.
So can we treat the first amendment the same way?
I don’t think that is the position being argued on this board. You are being soured on an entire issue by the ravings of the lunatics on the right.
Not interested in making any such case, and I am not likely to wet myself in the presence of weapons, scary or otherwise. It isn’t important whether or not a fair case could have been made to ban the Tommy gun during Prohibition. The fact remains that it was effectively banned as a matter of law. So, gun rights can be infringed. Because they have been. Let me know if I’m going too fast for you, here.
What an interesting topic for conversation! Perhaps another time?
friend in Florida, avid gun owner, says all of his Republican friends are conservatives and every one of them wants far more strict gun control – they are tired of arming themselves to the teeth in case the inner city gangs try to invade the suburbs. that’s the long and short of it, isn’t it?
Scroll up and remind yourself why you brought it up - as an example of why citizens need to be armed. Then, tell us what would have *actually *happened in the only real-world example of justification you can present. 'Kay?
First, tell us how that would happen outside some paranoid fantasy dystopia you’re fondly caressing, *then *you can ask to be taken seriously.
Don’t post drunk.