[QUOTE=treis]
Sweet. Is it ok if I get a Sarin tipped warhead to go with my Stinger Missile system?
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, no. Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons would be illegal thanks to US treaty obligations, if not specifically banned by the 2nd amendment. If our own government is bound by law not to use those weapons, then we in a partisan fight against our government (presumably abusing we the people’s rights etc. etc.) would be obliged to reciprocate. That would be my reasoning.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Sorry no. Got a cite for that?
[/QUOTE]
Damn, boy. :rolleyes:
The text of decision *itself * is linked in my earlier reply to Bricker. Now go educate yourself. Sheesh.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
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*.
[/QUOTE]
Miller can definitely be read as affirming an individual right.
“The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress.” - the Militia is not the military, nor, nor are they the National Guard which States are authorized by Congress to maintain.
“The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” - here we see that the Militia is all able-bodied males - if the Militia is the National Guard as some claim, then are all males now the National Guard? Further, they are expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves. Seems pretty clear they’re expected to have the right to keep and bear military arms. If the government is not going to supply those arms, then they must be able to purchase the arms themselves.
The quotes from Blackstone and Adam Smith both affirm that the Militia was all adult males. “‘In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force.’” - in other words, the Militia are definitely not professional soldiers.
I mean, the whole discussion seems to support an individual right by giving the historical context that the Militia is all capable adult males, that they are not professional soldiers, and that they must supply their own weapons of military design. By extension, given the forward progress of Society, we can also assume that:
further,
So to me, the whole decision seems to point to an individual right, and the real argument is a nitpick over whether or not a short-barreled shotgun is a Militia weapon or not.
[QUOTE=Una Persson]
the Militia is not the military, nor, nor are they the National Guard which States are authorized by Congress to maintain.
[/quote]
False. The Militia Act of 1903 established that yes, it is. An argument to the contrary, however abstruse, has about as much value as an argument that the federal income tax is unconstitutional.
Don’t like that law? Either get it repealed or live with it.
A nitpick? The establishment of the Constitutional principle that a non-militia firearm does not have its ownership protected is sorta the *heart * of the the matter, innit?
[QUOTE=lokij]
Sorry, no. Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons would be illegal thanks to US treaty obligations, if not specifically banned by the 2nd amendment. If our own government is bound by law not to use those weapons, then we in a partisan fight against our government (presumably abusing we the people’s rights etc. etc.) would be obliged to reciprocate. That would be my reasoning.
[/QUOTE]
Since when do treaties supercede my constitutional rights?
[QUOTE=treis]
Since when do treaties supercede my constitutional rights?
[/QUOTE]
Since always, the law has always been very unclear on whether or not it’s possible for treaties to be unconstitutional. The constitution vests all foreign relations power in the national government and there are no expressed limitations on treaty making power. If I had to guess, it was written that way to give our nation’s government a little wiggle room if we were ever forced to sign an unfavorable treaty at the hands of another foreign power. Plus, as I said, the limitations placed on our own government’s powers by the treaty keep it well within the spirit of the law regarding the 2nd amendment.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Damn, boy. :rolleyes:
The text of decision *itself * is linked in my earlier reply to Bricker. Now go educate yourself. Sheesh.
[/QUOTE]
Fingers paralysed? Unable to cut and paste?
Your argument is not in the text. Several commentaries on the Dec have said so. So sorry, wrong again. Bzzzt.
Read the fucking thread too, boy.
Could you guys, like, move or something? Ya know - get some oars and take a little trip? I hear the middle of the Pacific’s nice this time of year. 'Cause this whole adoration of weapons things creeps the hell out of me. I’m not all that thrilled about living right next door to that level of nutjobbiness.
Ten times as many of us as of you, and we’re better armed, too. Who’s gonna move? 
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Could you guys, like, move or something? Ya know - get some oars and take a little trip? I hear the middle of the Pacific’s nice this time of year. 'Cause this whole adoration of weapons things creeps the hell out of me. I’m not all that thrilled about living right next door to that level of nutjobbiness.
[/QUOTE]
Generally speaking, the person with the problem is the one that leaves, but that’s neither here nor there. I object to your categorization of my beliefs as “nutjobbiness”, and I hardly adore guns, any more than I adore any other tool I have in my garage. That’s all it is, a tool, and I believe that the Constitution gives me the right to possess it as an instrument of defense. You can object to it all you want to, but I would prefer that you left out the absurd name calling, thank you very much.
Incidentally, this will really creep you out: somewhere within 5 block radius of you, be it legally or illegally possessed, one of your neighbors does in fact have a gun. I would bet a great deal of money on that. The chances are overwhelmingly in my favor. Enjoy your fear.
Oh, wait, let me revise that: you live in Canada. That means that your statement is meaningless because there’s no possibility of you ever being my neighbor. You just wanted to be insulting. Ah, well, what else is new?
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Oh, wait, let me revise that: you live in Canada. That means that your statement is meaningless because there’s no possibility of you ever being my neighbor.
[/QUOTE]
He’s pretty much my neighbour.
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Could you guys, like, move or something? Ya know - get some oars and take a little trip? I hear the middle of the Pacific’s nice this time of year. 'Cause this whole adoration of weapons things creeps the hell out of me. I’m not all that thrilled about living right next door to that level of nutjobbiness.
[/QUOTE]
I am adamantly against most gun control laws, including the ban on handguns in my own community. However, I have no interest whatsoever in owning a gun, and can’t imagine a circumstance where I would ever get one. I am the farthest thing in the world from being a “gun nutjob” or someone who “adores weapons.” I don’t hate them…I don’t love them…I just believe in the rights of the people to have them.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Read the fucking thread too, boy.
[/QUOTE]
I did. And Bricker and Una- both of whom I respect far more than I respect you (who are you, anyway?) both agree with me and the Wiki cite. You on the other hand, seem unable to post a cogent argument or cite.
[QUOTE=silenus]
Hee, hee! I’m loving this decision. Here’s another version of the story. It’s about time the citizens of DC got their rights restored.
[/QUOTE]
How about you just give us the right to vote? I’d settle for the right to vote for a congressman and two senators, maybe my prioirties are screwed but that seems like a bigger priority to me. I guess I’d be more impressed with the entire “right to bear arms” rhetoric if we were invaded more often or if we needed to rise up against oppressive domestic regimes more frequently than we have.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Read the fucking thread too, boy.
[/QUOTE]
Moderator’s Note: ElvisL1ves, cool it down a bit or take it to the Pit. I don’t really want to have to come up with another new rule as to whether calling someone “boy” in Great Debates is an insult, so why don’t you just not do it?
[QUOTE=lokij]
Since always, the law has always been very unclear on whether or not it’s possible for treaties to be unconstitutional. The constitution vests all foreign relations power in the national government and there are no expressed limitations on treaty making power. If I had to guess, it was written that way to give our nation’s government a little wiggle room if we were ever forced to sign an unfavorable treaty at the hands of another foreign power. Plus, as I said, the limitations placed on our own government’s powers by the treaty keep it well within the spirit of the law regarding the 2nd amendment.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, in Reid v. Covert (1957) the SCOTUS held that
Whatever your views on the Second Amendment, the Senate and President of the United States cannot sidestep the Bill of Rights by making a treaty with some foreign power.
[QUOTE=MEBuckner]
Actually, in Reid v. Covert (1957) the SCOTUS held that
Whatever your views on the Second Amendment, the Senate and President of the United States cannot sidestep the Bill of Rights by making a treaty with some foreign power.
[/QUOTE]
Right. It’s the Const & Bill of Rights, Treaties, Laws, in that order. Treaties apparently trump bills but not the Const.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Right. It’s the Const & Bill of Rights, Treaties, Laws, in that order. Treaties apparently trump bills but not the Const.
[/QUOTE]
I stand corrected. Thanks for the information. I still say that the US treaty would mean that banning Nuclear, Bio and Chem weapons from private use would be well within the spirit of the 2nd amendment from the standpoint of countering government power.
Here’s what the United States Code says about militias.
Reading the bit in section (a) about “all able bodied males” leads one to support the position that the NRA would have you believe, but in (b)(1) we see that “organized militia” is the National Guard and Naval Militia.
Since the oft-ignored first half of the second amendment refers to a “well organized militia” it is quite logical to interpret this as members of the National Guard. So all the second amendment does is prevent the federal government from disbanding the National Guard.