I’m not going to play the case citing game, largely because I don’t care, in addition to not really knowing how.
You spoke of original intent, and such, and I attacked that. What courts have since ruled doesn’t matter a whole lot to me when discussing original intent, or for that matter, what’s prudent for society.
You are absolutely right!
A gun is the “means” to self defense.
If the only way to defend oneself is to use a weapon, then a weapon is a required for self defense.
To deny anyone the “means” to defend themselves(to deny them the right to carry a gun) , is , in effect, denying them the right of self defense.
For many, a gun is the only “means” of effective self defense.
This is especially true for females, who are generally weaker, and slower than their attackers and therefore cannot out fight nor run away.
I don’t mean to sound like I’m copping out.
The substance of my second post in the thread was in response to what you said about original intent, and that’s all I was interested in responding to. Your legal cites are fine and dandy, I just wasn’t interested in getting in a debate about them, as they weren’t pertinent to the original intent discussion.
'Fraid you just lost me with the God thing.
No copouts inferred, Beef. I was just letting you know how the courts have ruled on the legal issues you raised.
Susanann, you never cease to amuse me. Since I am obviously thick, please show me the quotes you provided that show Thomas Jefferson “commonly carried 2 flintlock pistols when he walked the streets of Washington DC.” Thanks ever so much for your continued attention to the matter.
FYI: There was NO reason that an 18th flintlock pistol had to be loaded immediately before firing. As long as the powder stayed dry, it would fire weeks, months, even years later.
No one carried an unloaded weapon back then, an unloaded gun is practically useless.
Flintlock pistols of the 18th century were extremely powerful, effective and reliable. I was stunned the first time I went to a gun show, and saw how many were produced, sold, and carried by our 18th century Americans.
Tens, if not hundreds of thousands of these pistols, still remain today. Many, if not most of them are still in operable condition if one was crazy enough to fire it and possilby destroy the collector value. The pistols are still in such good shape because they were personal weapons, home weapons, and not usually weapons of war.
The flintlock pistol was designed soley for close quarter self protection from an attacker - these pistols were personal self defense weapons - many, if not most of them, were small and concealable. They were not for hunting, nor any long distance shooting. Troops were not commonly armed with flintlock pistols, pistols were not effective enough for armies to carry, so most armies carried rifles. Most pistols were bought, owned and carried by civilians for self defense and home defense.
Oh fer gawd’s sake. This is way late I’m sure but, as usual, minty green has made assertions of fact which are patently false and proceeded as if they are givens. He’s got a true talent with the logical fallacy of “begging the question.”
This is utter tripe. There is no basis in fact for your carte blanche dismissal and I demand it be defended, or retracted. He couches his absurdity with the word “given,” when it is anything but.
There’s another instance of this which lies within the thread he’s linked. He claimed that thread proves his assertion that there is “complete absence of evidence that the founders gave a shit about firearms as protection against crime.” This is more tripe. There are ample quotations in that thread showing that the founding fathers considered firearms a good and useful defense against crime. Perhaps not their main reason for acknowledging the existence of the private right to ownership in the 2nd amendment, but they certainly believed in a right to self-defense through firearms. Lemme paste a couple of the quotations I supplied in that thread:
• “Arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world as well as property. …Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding deprived the use of them.” – Thomas Paine
• “The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” - George Washington
Obviously, these cites, showing the belief of some very intelligent men that firearms were useful for self-defense disproves minty’s unsubstantiated statement of fact above that “18th century firearms were worse than useless for defense against criminals.”
Also, simply calling Susanann’s quotations “cut-n-paste spam” does not refute them. Some of them are indeed relevant statements from documents drafted by the very men whose beliefs we are trying to determine and are central to the issue at hand. **Minty’s ** out-of-hand dismissal is an attempt at creating a strawman and has no place here.
A google of “Thomas Jefferson pistols” brought up numerous references to his having owned pistols, but if there were any that were not on sites dedicated to gun-rights, I couldn’t find any. Typical was this article from ABC news that quoted Charlton Heston as saying “These are two pistols that belonged to Thomas Jefferson … and now I have them. I wonder what Mr. Jefferson would think of that?” That the comment came from Heston doesn’t prove anything one way or the other - certainly not when or where he carried them, but I would think that specific points (i.e., TJ walked around DC with 2 guns) that can ONLY be backed up by citing biased sources should be ommitted from GD, or at least retracted in good faith.
Personally, I don’t give a tinkers damn about what either side has to say on the subject. My opinion is this;
I’ve got a few guns.
I refuse to give them up so people who are afraid of guns won’t be afraid of them anymore.
I will defend with every last round I own myself, and my family from ANY, I repeat ANY attack on my freedom, no matter if it is perpetrated by my own government, or some dirtbag on the street.
I personally don’t care what Jefferson did, but it frightens me that the crime rate in DC will skyrocket now that no one can carry and or use a firearm, IMHO.
Guns are, just like cars, dangerous in the wrong hands. Even though I like to think of my aim as damn good, I can kill a whole lot more people in a crowd faster with my pick-up truck than I can with my Glock, Berettas, or MP5.
The merits of the lawsuit fail to exist, again IMHO, simply put, because DC isn’t a state, it’s residents cannot protect themselves, and that just sucks.
minty… I think it’s a matter of inference… Jefferson commonly walked in DC, he commonly carried two pistols, ergo, he commonly walked in DC carring two pistols. Does it have to be written down by verifiable sources to exist? A silly example… All humans have a brain, minty is human so minty must have a brain… no wait! I can’t find any verifiable source in the library or on the 'net so minty must NOT have a brain. :smack:
I don’t mean to offend antone but so many of these threads become mere verbal masterbation after a while.
But I thought the GUN was the …
Verbal masterbation …
I just love these threads…
So all those settlers on the frontier who kept a loaded rifle to protect their families from Indians would have been better off with what? I also think you deliberately caricature the qualities of the guns of the era. I don’t recall the stories about Daniel Boone referring to the bears he almost shot. I also recall reading that the marksmanship of the colonists was a major suprise to the English armies. They didn’t consider that fire could be brought to bear singly, but instead relied upon massed fire. You may also recall their protests at the targeting of officers, which they considered to be bad manners. Like a typical lawyer, you don’t care about the truth, you just care about swaying opinion even if you have to pass untruths knowingly to do so.
minty green, I can now see where you are coming from and I can see some of your reasoning.
(Thanks Texican for letting me more clearly see her arguement!)
minty green, Are you saying that The Second Amendment ( as well as all the other Bill of Rights and every other protection in the Constituion) CAN be restricted, eliminated, and nullified by any state?
If the Bill of Rights are a restriction only on the federal government, and not the states, then, are you saying that any state can eliminate the right to bear arms, the right to a jury trial, the freedom of religion, the right to a free free press, freedom from unreasonalbe search, etc as long as its own state constituion does not prohibit it?
Can any state restrict the Bill of Rights for particular groups, religions, races or ethnic backgrounds if they so chose to ? If not, why not?
If the state of Mississippi were to eliminate all jury trials, all patent protection, all newspapers, would that be ok and legal?
Furthermore, is there nothing, no rights at all, in the federal constitution that a state cannot take away if it so chooses? or are you saying only the Bill of Rights can be taken away by a state government?
Does the Supreme Court have no power at all in hearing any state case of law that involves any of the “federal” Bill of Rights?
Whoa, when did this get resurrected? Sorry folks, not much time to play today. I’ll just clear up this:
The Bill of Rights is solely a restriction on the federal government, not the states. Many of the rights guaranteed by the BoR have been incorporated against the states under the “Due Process” clause of the 14th Amendment. The 2nd Amendment, however, has been affirmatively rejected as applying against the states. You may find a few of the cases here (see footnote 2).
So, states can’t violate the bill of rights, except when it comes to “distasteful” rights?
Are any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights excluded from protection from states? If not, what makes the second special? Judicial activism?
Whining is so distasteful.
Yes. The grand jury requirement has also been affirmatively rejected, and other minor BoR provisions have simply never been an issue w/r/t the states, such as the 3rd Am.
I wasn’t whining - it seems that if it were rejected to apply to the states, it’d be due to judicial activism, reflecting the fact that it’s an unpopular right.
Let’s put our history in perspective. Presser v. Illinois, the first case cited in footnote 2, was decided 18 years after the fourteenth amendment was passed, at a time when no rights from the Bill of Rights had yet been held to apply to the states. And the Presser decision rested wholly upon the decision as given in U.S. v. Cruikshank, which was decided a mere 8 years after the passing of the 14th! Successful incorporation of rights from the Bill of Rights through the 14th didn’t really begin until early in the 20th century. Incorporation of rights was first seriously contemplated Gitlow v. New York in 1925 and didn’t really happen until Adamson v. California in 1947. Hell, most of the action involving incorporation of rights didn’t happen until the 1960s!
Now, I know what minty will say next: “But it’s still the law!” Yes, that is true. However, I’d feel mighty uneasy citing it, as Quilici does, for the proposition that “the Supreme Court has specifically rejected the incorporation of the Second Amendment”, since cases that are even more recent than Presser state flatly that no rights from the Bill of Rights should be held to apply to the states (see Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 581 (1900)). And we all know what’s been happening since then.
I should also note that, though Presser refuses to apply the 2nd amendment to the states, it does have a rather pro-gun-ownership tone. Quote: “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.” (emphasis added) But hey, the text is linked on the page minty linked to, you be the judge.
“Judicial activism”? Did you happen to notice that those Supreme Court cases date back to 1886?!?
On preview: Very nice, Max. But it is still the law, as recognized by the U.S. Courts of Appeals on a semi-regular basis.
Can I call 'em or what? 
All hail Max The Seer!