I ask again- Exactly how does this case ignore Miller? Why not just answer me, rather than hinting that the answer may be elsewhere? Just answer my question directly, if you can. :dubious:
I didn’t know that, in fact, so thanks for the heads up.
But since it says “keep and bear” and not just “bear” I don’t see how this point makes the amendment any less liable to alternative interpretations such as the ones I mentioned.
In case you are saying that, since it’s the right to “keep and bear arms,” this means no right simply to “keep arms” was intended, I’d say that’s not clearly correct. Does it mean a single right to keep and bear arms, or does it mean two rights, namely, the right to keep and the right to bear arms?
-FrL-
I think Chief Pedant brought up a good point. For those arguing for guns, where does the right to bear arms stop? Do I, for example, have the right to own a flamethrower or Abrahms tank?
Yeah, yeah you said that. Unfortunately, the rest of your post goes on to challenge not the points I made, but apparently the point you wish I’d made. Please go re-read it more carefully before posting again.
You didn’t read your own cite, then, any more than you’ve read the rest of this thread.
Gawdamighty. :rolleyes: Okay. *Miller * established the interpretation that the Second guarantees a collective right only, the right of the people to have a well-regulated militia and to have arms related to that specific purpose, and disavows any other interpretation. This latest ruling finds an individual right, not related to militia use, in violation of the settled (like it or not) interpretation in law.
Clear now? :rolleyes: If not, go back and read your own cite more slowly.
That’s the status of the law, as decided by the people with the role of so deciding under the Constitution. You can believe their decision was wrong if you like, but you can’t pretend they haven’t made one, or that it doesn’t apply.
But you’ve been told that already, too. You too, Lizard. You don’t like it, get to work on that amendment. If you can’t make a case for one that will convince the majority of the people, too damn bad. That’s how ithe system works.
I don’t believe there are any absolute rights in the Bill of Rights, or rights which have no limits or qualifiers on them. Obviously, IMO, there have to be practical limits. Where those limits lie some might argue would be that the people (meaning, the individuals) would be limited to the sort of hand-carried weapons a soldier might have. Now, this could include Stinger missiles, and few would argue for widespread private possession of those. Some argue for what a “typical” solider could be outfitted with, but that could include grenades, etc. Some say that based on the the presence of private individuals with cannons and other high explosives at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, that the 2nd Amendment might have been fully meant to allow “any” weapons. That may or may not be true; the writings I’ve looked at are silent on that specific topic. Some who might be called “radicals” say there is no limit, and that to have a limit one must use the Amendment process to specify a limit.
IMO the limit would apply to anything other than a weapon designed to kill more than one person at a time or per action. A silly limit perhaps since it’s arbitrary, but it would exempt all guns (1 bullet per person) and would ban flamethrowers, grenades, missiles, tanks, NBC, etc.
No, but you can continue to pretend that rulings cannot and should not be overturned, all evidence to the contrary. Unless, of course, you would like to argue that all of the landmark cases I quoted (in the post that you ignored) were bad decisions.
Based on replies I saw quoted above, there was at least some argument suggesting that Miller was precedent and should be kept.
However, Miller does not directly hold that the Second Amendment supports only a collective and not an individual right. Miller held that the law prohibiting the possession of a sawed-off shotgun was allowable and consistent with the Second Amendment. Perhaps the posters claiming that Miller says the right is collective and not individual could post the text from the opinion that says that.
This is really the point of the question I asked. Every limit you would place on the right to bear arms is arbitrary. The same people that scream about the government taking away hand guns sit blissfully by while they take away my Stinger missle. If the limits we are placing are arbitrary, isn’t the best way to place those limits throught the democratic process?
No. Should we take a vote on the application of the 1st Amendment? The fact that it is there guarantees the right in some capacity. For people to think that they can magically wave it away simply because they don’t want guns around opens up the possibility that I can make your right to speak a crime because I don’t like what you have to say.
The honest thing for the antis to do is to push to have the amendment repealed. But that will not ever happen because it would reaffirm the amendment when people come out against the repeal. That is, of course, assuming that it could ever get out of Congress, which it won’t. Which is why the nickel and dime piecemeal death-by-a-thousand-cuts legislation scheme has been the chosen method. Why, who could be against evil-looking black guns? What are you, some kind of lunatic? How could you possibly be against the banning of “armor-piercing” or “cop killer” bullets? What are you, anti-American? Of course, the truth is much more than polemics, for both parties. The antis have just been more effective at scare tactics.
I see. You’re o.k. with me walking around with a Stinger missle then?
Well, any limit I would place would be arbitrary. But I believe that it’s possible to have a non-arbitrary limit.
I don’t know if the democratic process is one which should be applied to basic rights in the Constitution. If you recall recently, Cecil showed how somewhere around 40-50% of American adults believe in a “young earth.” True the Amendment process doesn’t go to a general poll in any State (AFAIK?) but the point is, some things don’t work that well when one relies on the so-called “horse sense” of the masses.
So how do we set those limits? It depends I guess on where the final say falls on what the 2nd Amendment means. If it means that citizens are intended to have proficiency and availability to firearms such that they could, if necessary, be called up into a militia, then it should mean that many more weapons would be protected arms. If it means just that in general citizens have an individual right to keep and bear arms for the primary purpose of being a society which has internal as well as external protection, then maybe it’s a tighter definition. I’m not the one to make that decision.
There is also a clear breakdown between the active military and the “ready reserve” of the people, whether you say people are individuals who can be rallied, or a collective militia. Even with soldiers there are limits on weapons access. You won’t see troops in US-side bases walking around with Stinger missiles, and a lot of the time they have no weapons on their person at all. I’ve spent a whole day on an active military base and not seen a single weapon except for a statue of a cannon (and those of the guards at the gate). And I’ll hazard no soldier goes to his or her bunk at night with a Stinger missile launcher named “Charlene.” 
So there’s a good basis for limiting the casual carrying of destructive devices in that one example there.
Wrong. It’s obviously precedent, but it does not necessarily follow that it should be kept; that’s a different debate. It must be complied with until reversed or the Constitution is appropriately amended, yes, that’s what you’ve read (and this thread is short; you can read it all if you wish to participate, not just quotes). I trust you do respect precedents you happen to dislike, however grudging?
Here’s the text, since you apparently can’t be bothered. All about militias, and their regulation, and how the Constitution establishes them, and that being the purpose of the Second, just as its writers said it was. There’s your establishment of the collective right. The ruling that a firearm that is not military in nature does not have its ownership protected is your dismissal of the individual-right interpretation. Clear now?
Now how do you explain that this latest lower-court ruling to the contrary does not conflict with that established guidance from the Supremes? You could, I suppose, base an argument on your strawmannish insertion of the word “directly” into your statement, but that might be a bit too transparent for you.
Never said that. The Supremes can reverse themselves, and the Constitution can be amended, but until that happens, their word is final. *It doesn’t matter * if anyone disagrees or agrees at that point.
If you disagree, your remedy is the amendment process, not whining. You insist on the “honest thing to do”, well, there it is. Get the militia limitation amended out. Well, there’s another “honest thing to do” available, namely to suck it up.
Well, there are two ways that the limit can be enacted. Either the courts can decide on a limit, or it can be left up to the voters to decide.
I guess my biggest problem with the pro-gun side in this argument is that nearly all of them are perfectly happy to limit the right to bear arms. They only get their knickers in a bunch if that right is limited beyond what they feel is appropriate. A Stinger missile falls under any reasonable definition of arms that you can provide, yet you have no problem in banning them.
Hmm…with respect, I thought I was providing justification for more than one definition which excluded Stinger missiles. As in it’s a weapon of mass destruction (I didn’t use that text previously, however, but it’s what I mean when it can attack multiple people at once) and it’s not a weapon in everyday use by the soldiery. The discussion however is academic as I have no moral or intellectual authority to push a point here.
No, he’s just glad to see the decision!
I interpret that to be two rights (1. keep arms, 2. bear arms), but they are obviously closely related. Keeping arms would not automatically make it possible for someone to bear them, that is, be part of a military unit.
I don’t know how I can be more clear than in post #49, which you quoted. Keeping arms might mean deer hunting, but bearing arms means military. You can do one, both, or neither. The 2nd Amendment guaranteed both rights, but made no requirement that you own a pistol or put on a uniform.
No problem whatsoever. If you want to pay several thousand dollars and get licensed for a class III weapon, go for it. I think the current regulations we have in place for heavy weaponry is about right (maybe could be streamlined a bit more), it’s not an outright ban but it does place common sense restrictions on that kind of hardware above and beyond the simple costs involved. There are guys out there with fighter jets, tanks, machine guns, flamethrowers and artillery and they’ve not caused a problem yet. Why would you cause a problem with a legally owned stinger missile? A stinger missile used as a weapon won’t get you any more or less dead than 4 guys with boxcutters, or a nut with a moving van and some fertilizer.
Sweet. Is it ok if I get a Sarin tipped warhead to go with my Stinger Missile system?
Sorry no. Got a cite for that? No where does it state your interpretation in the Wiki cite I furnished. Note here in the Wiki cite "Gun control advocates claim this case as a victory because it states that ownership of firearms may be restricted.* Some further interpret the decision to mean one must be a member of a government-controlled militia in order to be protected, although the court did not state this.* Let me repeat that “although the court did not state this.”. Nice interpretation, and others also feel that way, but if you say that SCOTUS thought that way,* they didn’t bother to put that in their ruling*.