Yes. And if your aunt had testicles she would be your uncle.
If there ever is a nuclear device small enough to fit into a gun cartridge, we have MUCH bigger problems than the debate over whether the 2nd would cover such a device.
It would be like asking if a hypothetical future device could connect to people’s brain waves and you could command them a la The Manchurian Candidate. Would broacast over such a device be covered under the idea of Freedom of Speech?
jtgain: While it is physically impossible to build a nuclear device the size of a bullet, I was making the point that A: it would, if it existed, fit under the definition of ‘small arm’, and B: that it can not currently exist.
But still, if one wishes to go Star Trek, the phasers seen on the show, that vaporize human beings? Small arms. (The tripod mounted one from the pilot of Star Trek would be a Light Weapon. The ship mounted ones would be Ordnance)
That’s what being Supreme means. Somebody has to have the final word. Allegedly they even remind each other “We’re not last because we’re right, we’re right because we’re last.” That’s their function under our Constitution.
Nobody ever claimed they don’t make bad decisions. Please get it straight. What they make are *final * decisions. Decisions we all get to live by. That’s how our system works, ya know.
But if you don’t like a decision, you still have recourse - legitimate recourse, that is, not the recourse of simply ignoring it, or disparaging the Court’s authority so that it doesn’t help you in cases where you do like the result. In case you were out sick the day your Civics teacher discussed checks and balances, they are:
If the ruling you don’t like is based on an interpretation of law: Get the law changed, via the appropriate legislative body or by publlic referendum. That’s been done successfully countless times.
If the ruling you don’t like is based on an interpretation of the Constitution: Get it amended, via the procedure defined in its text and used successfully dozens of times already.
If you fail with either approach, through inability to present an argument convincing enough to sway a majority of the people, and are still unwilling to either accept the judgment of your fellow citizens or to honestly reconsider your own position: Work to elect a President who will pack the court with appointees who share your ideology and can be expected to rule the way you want, reversing whatever “settled law” impedes that progress. It may require having those appointees evade or lie about their own predetermined positions in their hearings, but that’s the price the majority just has to pay in order to satisfy minority ideologues, isn’t it? That approach has also been proven effective lately.
But you should not expect *praise * for stating a mere willingness, however grudging, to obey the law as it stands while not bothering to pursue any of the legitimate recourses the law permits you.
Well, me and the Supreme Court. Not that you have to like it, but, well, see above.
Call it “explanatory” instead of trying to find a word to dismiss it with, and it may become clearer to you.
Did you actually read the relevant quote I extracted from it? That is *exactly * what they decided. :rolleyes:
Oops.
Really? I didn’t know that.
Boy, you’re on a roll here. Tell me more.
Ho ho and ha ha. It’s amazing what you have the stones to say with a straight face. YOU are telling ME about process? It’s amazing that when it’s something that you have a problem with you give me a civics lecture on how it’s supposed to work, but when they find something in favor of one of your bedrock principles you laud them for doing so and castigate people like me and Bricker for our slavish devotion to process.
OK, now you’re taking this too far. I can’t stop laughing. This is some sort of parody post, right?
Thanks for the civics lesson, though, because, of course, I am a total ignoramus about this subject. :rolleyes:
I did. Did you?
Okay, let’s take a look at it again. I didn’t think we’d have to go back to Reading Comprehension 101, but here goes:
This is the part where he declares that the Second Amendment was created with the intent of assuring the continuation and possible effectiveness of a militia force. Now, as per the actual text of the Second Amendment, this is done by ensuring that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Had Justice McReynolds then gone on to say, “therefore only persons affiliated with a militia may keep and bear arms pursuant to their active involvement with that militia, and such arms must be kept and regulated by that militia in order to be protected,” then you would be right. But as it is, the SCOTUS decided no such thing, and this ruling does not mean what you think it means.
You may not like it, but that’s how it is.
Heck, take a look at the Wikipedia page you yourself cited says (emphasis mine): “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 explicitly state this.” Not a reliable source, maybe, but that sentence has existed on that entry for quite some time, looking at the page history. In any case, I believe the burden is on you to show where exactly the SCOTUS made the decision you are claiming they made, and where exactly the restrictive language exists in the Second Amendment. (“Explanatory” vs. “prefatory” isn’t exactly going to cut it.)
Please stop inserting your own ideas willy-nilly into the words of others; you’re not doing anybody any favors in this debate.
Since your previous remark, which you said was directed to me, showed no evidence that you understood that, yes.
I have no problem keeping the nature of the job and the fitness of its occupants as separate issues.
Another thing you don’t seem to understand is that my usual beef with Bricker isn’t about process but about refusal to consider principle when applying that process - his “slavish devotion”, which you’re signing up to, to the letter of the law while pretending there isn’t even any such thing as the spirit of the law. Or, almost as often, with his claim to be applying process impartially when his result-orientation is quite apparent.
But the Second has its spirit explained right in that very single sentence. It is not even adherence to process, much less to principle, to dismiss it. Got it now?
Now go back to your work getting the Constution amended to suit you, or to your whining about not having your way without any effort at persuasion, whichever you prefer. Your credibility is your own responsibility.
You’re reading more into it than is there. Let’s continue …
Right - within the purpose just explained. Outside that purpose, the Second is silent. It neither protects nor bans any riight outside the purpose of a wellpregulated militia. As the ruling said, “It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Not with any other end; *that * one.
What part of “with that end in view” do you not consider explicit? How would a contrary holding be consistent with either the letter or the spirit of the decision?
This thread is getting more action that the Asian Sex Slave one.
Wierd, huh.
All that the SCOTUS established in Miller is that the Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” with the purpose of assuring the continuation and effectiveness of a militia.
They did not rule that protecting the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms was outside the purpose of rendering possible the effectiveness of a militia, and if you think otherwise, I would very much appreciate it if you would show me where they stated so explicitly.
Asian pr0n isn’t an article of religious faith for nearly as many people as is gun possession.
SP, horse, water. Nothing more I can do for you.
Well, all I’ve asked of you is that you show me where in U.S. v. Miller the SCOTUS explicitly stated that an individual right was not protected by virtue of being outside the purpose they inferred for the Second Amendment. If you can’t do it, that’s okay; I wasn’t expecting you to.
So far, all you’ve done is tell me what you think it means. Forgive me for holding the opinion of the highest judiciary in slightly higher esteem. :dubious:
So then if, say, Massachusetts or California passed a total statewide ban on any guns of any type, that wouldn’t bother you in the least?
And just as importantly, if Massachusetts or California decided to pass a ban on any of the other freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, would that bother you?
The Fourteenth Amendment was established in order to, in concert with the Tenth, ensure that rights granted by the Constitution would be inviolable. The States certainly should have the latitude to craft their legal structures in ways that make sense and apply to their populations. But the Constitution protects all citizens from the opinions of their neighbors on certain things, even if they’re locally considered ‘morally wrong’.
This is up for argument, and the Supreme Court has disagreed. Wiki What you’re arguing is closer to Black’s dissent in Adamson v. California.
Instead, the court has decided that some rights will be incorporated, based on differing rationales. There is a strong argument for why the Second Amendment should not be incorporated: it addresses a relationship between either the federal government and militias, or the federal government and citizens. There is plenty of historical and textual support for this proposition.
Wow. Color me shocked. I’m usually theoretically against the inroads of statism into local jurisdictions, but the acceptance of rights guaranteed to all citizens under the collective government I assumed was necessary for its parts.
I need to go get me a biography of ole’ Hugo.
That is an extremely weak argument. The one and only one amendment in the Bill of Rights that specifies that it pertains to the federal government (it ain’t the Second) has been among the most thoroughly incorporated by judicial precedent.
Well, your statement is patently false. Several amendments refer specifically to the federal government.
Aside from that, you haven’t really made an argument. I encourage you to do so.
Sorry, that was needlessly rude.
The First, Seventh, and Tenth all refer to the federal government. And it is very likely that “free State” also refers to the federal government. Eugene Volokh, no friend of gun control, has done some good work on that area finding that “free State” almost certainly referred to a country free of despotic national rule. That doesn’t settle many Second Amendment issues, but it does suggest the amendment is about a relationship with the federal government as one of the parties.
I’d just like to point out that the history of 1787-89 demonstrates clearly that the concrns of the Founding Fathers included protecting the droits de l’homme from a despotic national government (like the aberrance of that British government run by George III and Lord North that had resulted in the Revolution) – not to protect the droits de l’etat.
Whether or not you particularly as an individual subscribe to a ‘natural rights’ jurisprudence (and indeed metaphysic), I think it’s self-evident from the writings of the time that people from Adams, Hamilton, Franklin, and Madison to Jefferson and Mason did subscribe to it, and would be dismayed that their writings are today being used in support of a statist authoritarian stance.