Actually, there is something magical about guns: the Bill of Rights. There’s no fundamental right to medicine, to flight, or to own a home with wheels. You know well that infringing a fundamental right requires a compelling governmental interest and a showing that the regulation sought is the least-intrusive way to achieve the government’s aim.
In the other thread. Here the hell you said such a thing:
What you’ve done here is a “lives saved/lives lost” analysis. A cost/benefit analysis would be, “I expect the database to cost $1 billion per year to maintain and save 30 lives.” Go ahead, try it, it’s cleansing.
Man, practicing law has really stunted your imagination. Your own example requires re-registering at every change of ownership. So, in the new scheme, the law will require that at ever transfer of ownership the gun must be “re-coded” with the new owner’s information. Not all that different, really. So, again: with such a scheme, would you still advocate a registration database? What would the function of such a database be, beyond giving law enforcement the ability to hassle gun owners based on nothing more than their presence in the database and their proximity to the crime?
As long as your hypothetical system assures that the owners themselves could not re-code the markings, I’d be fine with that. And non-coded weapons would still have to be registered, of course.
There you go again, ignoring the introductory clause that establishes the bounds of the right: A well-regulated militia. Since my proposed registration system would not deny anybody the privilege of bearing arms, much less have any effect on the well-regulated militia, I can’t see how on earth it would be an infringement at all.
And on the “one net life saved” statement, I concede that the point did not expressly include the costs of administration. Nor should it have, since (as I recall) ExTank and I were arguing about balancing gun deaths vs. deterrent effect. I’m quite aware of administrative costs, and would certainly give them due consideration. I’m not gonna blow the budget on gun control for the sake of saving a single life, even a single net life. But even with all those qualifiers, my statement last summer was still a lot different than what you accused me of advocating, that “one life saved is worth any cost.” It is clearly not, and I have never said any such thing.
So Minty buddy, let’s (again) cut to the chase: What should be done with people like me? Should we alert the Alphabet Men about my “extremist” views? Should my emails and phone lines be monitored? Should my hard drive be interrogated? Should my property be searched? Should I be hauled in for questioning?
I’m tired of arguing & justifying why I have a right to own a firearm. I have reached the point where I am only interested in what you think should be done with people like me…
Right now? Nothing. You’re (presumably) not violating the law, so I have no problem with you or your firearms. If, on the other hand, new gun control measures are passed in the future and you decide to violate the law rather than comply with it, you should be arrested, charged, placed on trial, and fined and/or jailed if convicted, as provided by law. Simple, yes?
The Minutemen broke the law. Do you also think they should have been arrested, charged, placed on trial, and fined and/or jailed if convicted? What about Patrick Henry? Should he have been hauled in for “conspiracy to incite violence” after his speech in Richmond? How many years in prison should the Boston Tea Party participants have been given? 5? 10? Should folks like George Washington and Samuel Adams have been charged with treason?
So profound, Minty. [sub]As if I was even implying it…:rolleyes: [/sub]
A couple more questions:
Since you’re a law-and-order guy, do you think Rosa Park’s arrest for not moving to the back of the bus was justified? I can only guess your answer is an enthusiastic “Yes.” After all, she was breaking the law. More importantly, do you think her act of civil disobedience was wrong? If not, why not?
If Congress passes a law to ban all private ownership of firearms, would you comply? Would you urge others to comply? Would you turn people in who are not complying with this law?
I don’t see how the correction affects my post. Is there something I’m missing?
Minty green
Just what facts am I “not letting get in the way”? And calling the issue of whether your principle applies when there is no reasonable way to give effect to a clause a “nitpick”, as you seem to be doing, is ridiculous. That issue is at the heart of this debate. I might as well call your citation of court cases as “nitpicks”. And finally, your chocolate analogy bears no resemblance to the actual exchange. You did not say that giving effect to every word is your “favorite” interpretation, or that you “generally prefer” such interpretations. You said, and this is a direct quote (You know, direct quote. As in what someone actually said, not a wild distortion of what they said.)
Your subsequent posts slowly backed away from the position: first you said they should do so “if possible”, then “if reasonable”. This isn’t a nitpick; the last version of your principle is substantially different from the original. And don’t try to claim that the phrase “if reasonable” was implied in the original. That would make no sense. You said that your principle contradicts the claim that the first phrase has no meaning. But if the phrase has no meaning, then it is not reasonable to give it effect. In which case the (last version of the ) principle doesn’t apply, and therefore doesn’t contradict the claim. The only way the principle could apply if is there is no exemption for meaningless phrases.
Since you seem to enjoy ice cream analogies, here’s mine:
MG: People don’t realize that they are required to always eat chocolate ice cream
Me: What exactly does this mean?
MG: Don’t try to nitpick with your meaningless complaints.
Me: Can’t you discuss this rationally?
MG: Fine. People don’t realize that they should always eat chocolate ice cream if possible.
Me: So it is your position that people must always eat chocolate ice cream? What does this mean, and why is it so?
MG: It’s a basic principle of ice cream. Since chocolate is the best flavor, everyone must eat it. This principle contradicts those that say that Bob’s Ice Cream Store’s chocolate ice cream is really foul. In fact, Ice Cream Weekly has declared that Bob’s Ice Cream Store makes really good chocolate ice cream.
Me: So if I were to make chocolate ice cream with sardines and rye, that would be good ice cream? Are you saying that no matter how bad chocolate ice cream is, it’s better than the best vanilla ice cream? I think we should only eat ice cream that tastes good.
BG: Yes, chocolate ice cream with sardines and rye would be good ice cream if it tasted good. In the case of Bob’s Ice Cream Shop, Ice Cream Weekly has declared that it tastes good. And I didn’t say that the worst chocolate ice cream is better than the best vanilla ice cream. Chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream, as long as it is good ice cream. And yes, we should only eat ice cream that tastes good, but Ice Cream Weekly has declared that Bob’s Ice Cream Store makes really good chocolate ice cream, so we should eat it. Nifty, huh?
Me: You’re wavering. Earlier you said that we should always eat chocolate ice cream, and now you’re saying that we should eat it only if it tastes good.
MG: Gee, the facts never get in your way, do they? Just how do you go from “I like chocolate ice cream” to “everyone should eat chocolate ice cream”? It’s as if I had said that we should give effect to every word in a clause, and you had somehow gotten the idea that I think that we should always give effect to every word in a clause. I mean, really!
Did you really not see the word “compelling”?
What if we had an optional program, in which gun owners received privacy in exchange for giving up the right to transfer the gun?
Robb
Which version are you asking about? I still haven’t gotten a clear answer from minty green as to what exactly his position is. But based on what I’ve seen, it seems to be his personal opinion as to how the Constitution should be interpreted, which, although similar to the opinion of many judges, is not a legally binding obligation on the courts. IOW, the statement “courts are required to give effect to every word in a statute or constitutional provision” most certainly does exist. So in that sense, yes there is such a rule. Whether it’s true, binding, or backed by any authority beyond minty green’s say-so is quite another matter.
Having an interpretation of the clause which is different from yours is not ignoring it, and saying that it is displays a lack of respect for people who disagree with you. As for your second point: would requiring everyone to register with government as to what religion they are, and notifying the government of any change thereof, raise no first amendment questions?
Not the people. I have a great deal of respect for some of the people who take the contrary position in these threads. But I freely concede that I have little respect for the postion that the substantive total of the Second Amendment is “the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
Your opinion that the introductory clause is the ‘bounds’ of the independent clause is only that - your opinion.
Actually reading those papers and documents written by those who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights indicates they saw the introductory clause only as an example of a reason that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. There is no evidence to indicate that it is the only reason, your personal belief aside.
So minty, why exactly do you think that presenting a reason should indicate that that is the only reason?
But it’s not just my opinion. See Miller and every U.S. Court of Appeals opinion ever.
Nonsense. Read the 9th Circuit’s Silveria opinion from last year, which does an excellent job of pointing out that all anybody gave a shit about in the 18th century was the militia.
Because unlike you, I think that ignoring the express words of Congress and the states is, like, hideously dishonest and stuff. YMMV.
Your determination to play little word games is amazing. There is no “privilege” of bearing arms. It is a RIGHT. Listed at the top of the Bill of RIGHTS, which says The RIGHT shall not be infringed.
Not that I expect you to pay any more attention to the 2nd than you do to the 9th. After all, you would deny a right to self- and home-defense, based on its not being enumerated in the Constitution. :rolleyes:
minty green, I’m sure that I’m not the only person in this thread who would be interested in seeing you state exactly what you think the second amendment means.
You really don’t see anything disrespectful about misrepresenting someone’s position?
Your argument is bizarre. “Look at the introductory clause. It contains the word ‘militia’. Therefore, the 2nd amendment applies only to the militia.” See, in the real world, if you want to show that a statement is restricted to militias, you have to show that it actually says that it says that it is restricted to militias, not simply show that it contains the word “militia”. According to your logic, freedom of speech applies only to people who are members of a religion. Oh, and implying that someone thinks that the second amendment says “Oooh, guns 'r neat.” is yet another example of your disrespect for other people.
I’d like to know just where the words “the only reason the right of the people to bear arms exists is for the security of free states through militias” appear. Does the clause imply it? Maybe. But you didn’t say “the implied words”, you said “the express words”. So I’d like to see just where this is expressly stated.
BTW, if you can read “Because unlike you, I think that ignoring the express words of Congress and the states is, like, hideously dishonest and stuff. YMMV.” and seriously claim it is not disrespectful, then you have no idea what the word “respect” means. Or is catsix yet another person not worthy of your respect?
If your criterion is that the introductory clause must be given effect, what if we require that the national military involve the state militias in its operations? How is your “effect” any better than mine?
Why? It simply doesn’t matter what minty’s opinion of the meaning of the second ammendment is. He’s not in a position to interpret it for anyone, not even himself. His opinion would carry no more weight than anyone elses. Even if he was strongly opposed to gun control and he’s playing devil’s advocate against his own opinion, that doesn’t invalidate anything he’s said any more than him believing that gun control laws ARE just would make them any more valid.
The question under debate is the rights acknowledged by the second ammendment. This doesn’t change based upon minty’s opinion. The interpretation that the government, specificially the states, has the power to restrict private gun ownership does not stand or fall due to minty’s personal views.
So I repeat my question. Why do you care what minty, as a person, thinks? What really matters is the intent of the founding fathers, right? Each side is trying to prove their view of the intent behind the second ammendment is correct. The personal PoV of any individual, on either side, is irrelevant.**
I think this is an oversimplification, if not an outright misrepresentation. Any historical scholar can tell you that “the people” and “the militia” were one and the same in those days. Since we now have a standing army there is no longer a need(in theory we could trust the standing army to protect us from threats, foriegn and domestic) for individual citizens to bear arms. Representatives, the standing army, who are much better trained and equipped are doing that for us. It could be argued that “the well-regulated militia” IS the armed forces, and private citizens have no reason to keep or bear arms.**
This could only be arrived at by generous use of creative reading skills. The structure of the language of the first ammendment, specifically the language detailing the relationship between freedom of speech and freedom of religion, is clearly NOT the same as the clear relationship between the dependent and independent clauses of the second ammendment. This is a straw man at best.**
Umm, if it was written with those words we wouldn’t be having this debate. That would make it fairly clear(although there is still some ambiguity based on the definition of “militia”). It is also not the type of language which would have been used for a legal document of the time period we’re talking about. Undoubtedly they thought they were being clear. Time has taken these men away from us and the intent behind those words is no longer definitively known.**
This is hair-splitting. You acknowledge the possibility that the subjective clause DOES alter the meaning, and thereby the protected right. The debate should focus on which interpretation is most likely the correct one. Clearly everyone here knows the verbaitum text. If there is a disagreement over what the text expresses then both sides should clearly posit their interpretations and support them.
The fact is that the words “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” WERE expressly used. To give them NO weight is just as fallacious as giving them too much weight. That is what minty was objecting to. The complete dismissal of those words as relevant.
I think it means what the courts say it means. Of course, that’s one of the things that kills me about these threads. I drop by to dispell the vast misconceptions about the legal meaning of the Second Amendment, and everbody thinks I’m just offering my own opinion.
Now, if you want to know what the Second Amendment should mean, in my humble opinion, that’s a different question. I’ve also explained it in the past. I believe that the Second Amendment should be interpreted to confer an individual right to bear arms, and that–in accordance with the introductory clause–the right may not be infringed if that infringement would impair the well-regulated militia.
Crafter_Man, btw, is not a member of a well-regulated militia, so let’s not head down that road.
Jesus freakin’ Christ, buddy, it’s a message board. Somebody posts something, somebody else responds, the first person says that’s not really what they meant, and everybody moves on. Get over yourself already, and quit with the bullshit aspersions of dishonesty.
If I was playing by your rules, I’d have to accuse you of being disrespectful by misrepresenting my position. But since I’d rather attempt actual communication than just make nonsensical nitpicks, I’ll simply clarify for your benefit that I believe the introductory “militia” clause places a substantive restriction on the right recognized in the second clause. I believe this because of the principle of legal interpretation I described above, and because I believe if the founders hadn’t thought that clause was important, they wouldn’t have put it in there.
Huh? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishmengt of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . " Nope, I don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.
I didn’t say I respected everybody in these threads. I clearly said “some people.”
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. You accuse me of oversimplification, and then launch into why citizens would not have a reason to bear arms. How are the two related? Whether minty green is right has nothing to do with whether I’m oversimplifying. There’s nothing logically wrong with the position that minty green is correct, but I am not oversimplifying (not that I hold that position).
But the quote to which I was responding made no reference to the structure of the language. Minty green simply pointed out that the first clause contains the word “militia”, and implied that this somehow proves that the right to bear arms does not apply to the people, but to the militia. Look at what he said:
If I’m being “creative” in reading this as “that would not be unlawful, because the introductory clause of the Second Amendment contains the word ‘militia’ ”, please explain how. I could say “But banning speech of atheists is not unlawful. See the first clause of the First Amendment. Religion.” This would have as much validity as minty green’s quote. Like you were in the previous quote, you seem to be confusing an argument for how minty green’s position is right for an argument that his logic is right.
minty green implied that the meaning was expressly given. As in clearly, unambiguously, definitely known. Do you disagree with this position?
Hair-splitting? First of all, I do not acknowledge the possibility that the clause alters the protected right. I acknowledge the possibility that it alters the purpose of the right. Secondly, if highlighting the difference between a possibility and a certainty is “hair-splitting” then minty green is splitting atoms.
No, minty green is claiming that he objects to the dismissal of the words. But the fact is, we are quite willing to give weight to what the phrase says. The phrase does not say that the right to bear arms applies to militias, so minty green’s implication that our refusal to accepts this modification is “ignoring” the phrase is fallacious.
