Gun Control - The ninth amendment

Great Debates
61

**

Your wording here is “be able”, rather than “will be magically compelled to, in every case”. This defeats your next paragraph.

**

Only those who are being oppressed, typically, are the ones willing to resist. You’re ascribe “gun owners” to be this altrustic guardian of everyone’s rights, and no one made that assertion here. If a people were being oppressed, and were armed, they’d be able to resist. You can’t read that as “If a people were being oppressed, everyone who is armed will resist.”

**

I agree that it doesn’t make it immune to oppression. However, it definitely makes it resistant. As I said, resistance requires 2 things. A will and a means. In the cases you’ve mentioned, one of the two was lacking.

Does that mean that we should take away everyone’s means to resist, because some people didn’t have the will?

**

I don’t know enough about this to comment on it.

**

Agreed. Hence the ability to amend it. It’s much more honest than pretending like it doesn’t say what it says.

**

A) Usurpation of state powers by the federal government is not an imaginary violation of the Constitution. Neither is the suspension of the writ of habeus corppus, and other things.

B) Get off your feel-good idea that the civil war was about ending slavery.

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.”

  • Abraham Lincoln, 1862.

This was provoked by naval blockades that were a clear act of war.

62

I have not insulted anyone for their political beliefs. He put words in my mouth for the purpose of condescending me. This was insulting. After he threw that insult, I had no reason to withhold my own.

He insulted me. Because I used a gasp three letter word to insult him doesn’t substantively change the fact that he insulted me in a more subtle fashion.

63

I have not insulted anyone for their political beliefs. He put words in my mouth for the purpose of condescending me. This was insulting. After he threw that insult, I had no reason to withhold my own.

He insulted me. Because I used a gasp three letter word to insult him doesn’t substantively change the fact that he insulted me in a more subtle fashion.

Are we only allowed to insult people if we do it in an intellectual and pretentious manner?

64

**

Your wording here is “be able”, rather than “will be magically compelled to, in every case”. This defeats your next paragraph.

**

Only those who are being oppressed, typically, are the ones willing to resist. You’re ascribe “gun owners” to be this altrustic guardian of everyone’s rights, and no one made that assertion here. If a people were being oppressed, and were armed, they’d be able to resist. You can’t read that as “If a people were being oppressed, everyone who is armed will resist.”

**

I agree that it doesn’t make it immune to oppression. However, it definitely makes it resistant. As I said, resistance requires 2 things. A will and a means. In the cases you’ve mentioned, one of the two was lacking.

Does that mean that we should take away everyone’s means to resist, because some people didn’t have the will?

**

I don’t know enough about this to comment on it.

**

Agreed. Hence the ability to amend it. It’s much more honest than pretending like it doesn’t say what it says.

**

A) Usurpation of state powers by the federal government is not an imaginary violation of the Constitution. Neither is the suspension of the writ of habeus corppus, and other things.

B) Get off your feel-good idea that the civil war was about ending slavery.

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.”

  • Abraham Lincoln, 1862.

This was provoked by naval blockades that were a clear act of war.

65

Sorry for the double posts. The board is suddenly acting very strangely for me.

66

The discussion was about what the second amendment SAYS, not about your sidetrack above. Do you agree or disagree that, in the text of the amendment, the phrase ‘well-regulated’ applies to the word ‘militia’ and not ‘weapons’. Either the phrase ‘well-regulated’ only modifies the word ‘militia’ and is irrelevant to the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’, or it does somehow modify the word ‘arms’ as you originally claimed.

(I’m not even going to get into the change in meaning of the phrase ‘well-regulated’).

67

Well, thank you very much for making the point of exactly why these rights were spelled out so that the whim of the majority (not that I think you in any way represent the opinion of the majority) cannot repress the rights of others. IN case you weren’t aware, the bill of rights is most certainly part of the law of the land. If by “overwhelming mainstream of modern…” you mean European socialism, then you can keep it, I have no use for such a system.

Someone earlier, I believe it was frenzy, said to the effect “why would anyone be afraid of registration” as if to imply that by not submitting you must have something to hide. By this logic, then the only people who have rights are those that are breaking the law. So if I have nothing to hide, I have no reason to my home being randomly searched by the “authorities” for whatever they are on a crusade against at the time? I’ll give you an actual reason of why people are opposed to registration. California required owners of firearms meeting their arbitrary status of “assault” with the state. At a later date, these same weapons were declared to be illegal in the state. Want to guess what records they used to require them to be forfeited?
Other than provide a handy tool for confiscation, what exactly does “registration” provide as a benefit to the community? Nothing.

68

riboflaviin, are you having some trouble with the concept that regulating a militia necessarily entails regulating the tools that make a group of people a militia? (Hint: That’s inescapable). Or do you simply think that regulation = banning? (Hint: It doesn’t)

Simple sentence, simple meaning.

69

My point exactly. “Well regulated militia” is in the Constitution; “unfettered right to own firerarms, free from interference by any federal, state, or local government” is not.

70

No, it is that in the vernacular of the 18th century, “well regulated” had nothing to do with regulations.

All of this would be perfectly clear to you people if you would just read the Federalist Papers where the intentions of the writers is made clear. One thing that you will see repeatedly is the fear of tyranny. No one who reads these works can dispute that.

The one thing I really hate about socialists (liberals) is their position of “I don’t care what the law says, this is how I “feel”, so therefore that should be law so that you will have to feel that way too” There is a perfectly clear path to changing portions of the constitution. If you people really feel that strongly about it, I encourage you to take the LAWFUL approach and attempt to change it.

71

On a point of information. There’s no such thing as a “natural right” that is a very out dated 18th Century idea. As a concept it only works if you believe in God. There is no way to prove a “natural right” exists. This is not to say rights are not important, merely that what rights there are tend to vary from time to time and place to place. The British Human Rights Act (1998), for example provides for;

ARTICLE 12: RIGHT TO MARRY Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

Not in the US Bill of Rights. Equally it does not provide for a right to keep arms. Part of this gun control problem is the infelxible nature of the US constitution and its outdated faith in “natural rights”.

72

Hmmm, what about the “…right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” part? I think that covers the second half of your statement. Or do you have an alternate definition for “infringed” too?

Man I love gun rights threads!

73

You still have done nothing to explain how, even in that context, “regulating” a militia could not involve “regulating” the very things that make it a militia - even using the meaning of the 18th century. Can you do so? Put up or shut up, dude. I note that you also have not addressed the other point, that you’re ridiculously interpreting regulation as a synonym for banning. Can you address that, either?

Oh, my, there’s that “anyone who disagrees with me in the slightest deserves to have a label that I’ll use denigratingly” stuff again. Make an attempt to understand an argument before denouncing it and you might be convincing. Otherwise, you’re doing nothing but make yourself feel righteous, while to the rest of the world you simply look foolish and hateful.

74

Easy: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed if it interferes with a well-regulated militia. Ta-dah! Suddenly both clauses, and all the words, are given effect, as is required by the fundamental rules of statutory and constitutional legal interpretation.

75

Are you having some trouble supporting your original assertion? Why is it so hard for you to answer my simple, straightforward question? You made the false claim that the scond amendment “actually requires arms to be 'well-regulated”, when it clearly doesn’t. The phrase ‘well-regulated’ modifies ‘militia’, but not ‘arms’. The phrase which modifies ‘arms’ is ‘shall not be infringed’.

What’s inescapable is the sheer dishonesty that gun-grabbers possess. From your response, it’s clear that you realize that your assertion that the second amendment "actually requires arms to be 'well-regulated"was false, since you refuse to address my question about the text, yet you stick to calling your false assertion “inescapable”.

Even if ‘regulating the tools of the militia’ WAS the meaning of the first clause in the second amendment, you’re completely ignoring the second clause. The first clause would allow the federal government to regulate what would consitute a suitible weapon for the militia, what weapons you couldn’t carry when acting as the militia, etc. The second clause, however, explicitltly precludes any regulation of what arms THE PEOPLE may keep and bear.

Hint: licensing, banning, and restricting all = infringement, which the second amendment explicitly forbids.

Yes, it has the simple meaning that as a well-regulated militia is neccesary to have a free state, AND that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

76

Either your interpretation of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is rather interesting, and different than your interpretation of the similar phrasing in the first, fourth, and fifth amendments, or you somehow read the first part of the sentence with ‘well-regulated militia’ and skipped the second part. Which is it?

77

See my previous post, Riboflavin. In fact, I read, and give effect, to both clauses, while gun-rights folks ignore the first and give primacy to the second.

78

Way off base. Your rewording seems to say that the right of the people to bear arms is incompatible with a well-regulated militia, that the two must be somehow kept separate. How about the restatement of the Master:

79

There are a vast number of things that go into the efficiency of a fighting force, only one of which is the weapons. Read Sun Tzu for information on the art of warfare. Substitute “practiced” for “regulated” and perhaps the intention will become a bit clearer. You could provide a troop of monkeys with muskets, but they wouldnt be an effective fighting force. So in order for a group of men to be an effective deterrent against an aggressor, foriegn or domestic, he would need both to have practiced individually to hone the ability to hit what you shoot at, and the ability to work as a group to bring a mass of fire to bear upon said aggressor. None of these are possible if men are to be denied the right to keep and bear arms.
Now that being said, do not let it convince you that I accept your argument that the purpose of the second amendment is restricted to the functioning of the militia. The militia is given as but an example of why the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

I also believe I was very clear in my position as to registration versus confiscation. You might not have had chance to have read that post, so here again is what I think about that. In order to confiscate guns, or anything else, first the confiscator has to know who has what. How can you confiscate what you do not know exists? You cant. Examples have already been given by me of What happened in California. I believe it has happened in other states with various types of arms but I don’t have a cite at hand. It has become clear to those that intend to protect their rights that you cannot give in to what seems to be a “harmless” little request such as letting the govt know exactly what you have. Not to be repetitive, but the only purpose such registration serves is to provide a list of weapons to be confiscated when the next whim of the grabbers gets passed either by a municipality, state, or the fed.

I apologize for the rant, but I get so disgusted by the attitude of some that, to me, sounds like “dont bother me with the facts, its how I FEEL that matters”. Things like that is what gets us into the situation we are in now of the Fed Govt expanding its role far beyond the one intended and spelled out for it in the constitution by judical activists that have decided that they and they alone can decide not what the law says, but what the law SHOULD say.

80

SenorBeef

[Moderator Hat ON]

SenorBeef, you may NOT call a fellow poster a “dumbass” in this forum. Clear?

[Moderator Hat OFF]