You’re not getting the point about intent and principles.
*snip. I agree with your overall point, but I have to buzz you there. I disagree with that logic. Placing a explanation on a point does seem to put limits on the point. Example:
#1 Father to Child: Your curfew is 10 p.m.
#2 Father to Child: Your grades were good this term; your curfew is 10 p.m.
Contrary to your argument, #1 is much more broad exactly because there was no rationale given. It was not stated anything about grades and is therefore more expansive than #2.
The giving of the rationale seems to imply that the condition subsequent is properly understood by the explanation. In #2, the child gets a curfew seemingly only because her grades were good. If her grades slip next term, the implication is that her curfew could be earlier.
I agree that we have a personal RKBA, but this is the type of argument that gets us stuck in the mud.
It isn’t that I like it, but that it’s what it says. The *whole *thing, taken in its entirety. Thanks for the example of trying to belittle rather than engage in an argument which shows you to be wrong; no doubt that works great for your clients.
Strawman. No doubt you came across the concept of conflicting and limiting rights on Day 1 of Con Law, or would have if you hadn’t overslept.
A. Well-regulated and B. State. Please. :rolleyes:
Maybe if you answer the question that could help me out.
If I understand you correctly, I think you would answer that the government could indeed outlaw quill pens so long as it still allowed computers, word processing programs, emails and printers so that books could be published. That is the intent and purpose: that books be published, and if they specified a manner for them to be published that has turned out to be antiquated, then we can just shitcan that manner on our own and substitute the new one.
Am I close?
Why not? I mean then only criminals in that city would have guns. But see, that’s my point. Gun control, no matter how stringent or how wide- simply does not work in the USA. CA has the most stringent gun laws in the nations, and it is a very large state- still, they dont work. But when the Gun control advocates see (and concede) it doesnt work, then they insist that we can make it work by making the laws more far reaching and more stringent- in the face of all evidence to the contrary. The fact that a experiment doesn’t work on a small scale is certainly evidence it might not work on a larger scale. And think of what the USA would have to do: repeal the 2nd Ad. Force all states to have the same gun control laws. Spend hundreds of billions buying back all those guns. Hire tens of thousands more cops. Build three times the number of prisons we have now. Get rid of the 4th and 5th Ad, so you can have house to house warrantless “no knock” searches. Be prepared for hundreds of Ruby Ridge sitreps. And after that- if it still doesnt work, then what? Say ooops?:rolleyes:
Of course- but for how long? You can make guns you know. Hand crossbows, knives, etc. If we saw the murder rate dip by half then creep back up to 90% of what it is today- would that be worth it? Remember- billions and billions spent. Three Amendments gutted. Your civil rights trampled upon- because yes, they will do a warrantless search of *your *house too. A dozen armed police or agents coming in the middle of the night, smashing open your door, scaring your kids or pets, and if you make the wrong move- you’re dead meat.
Why? Well in order to not gut yet another part of the Constitution, you’d have to buy back all those guns. You’d have to hire three times the number of police or Feds. Some number wouldnt comply, so off to prison for them. Remember, there are about 100 million gun owners in this nation. Even if only 5% didnt comply, that would be Five million more in prisons- that’s double what we have now.
Australia did it, true. But it was expensive, and so far experts disagree whether or not it worked. And Australia had only 700000 such guns in ownership, a much lower ratio that the US- one gun for every five Aussies, instead of one gun for every American. It cost them over $500Million. The USA has 300 million guns. It would cost 1000 times that or $500 billion. And, like I said experts disagree on whether or not it worked.
Well, because 'your way" means getting rid of a Constitutional Right, and would cost 100’s of billions, triple the prison population, and require ten times more cops.
Our way- means violent crime keeps going down. But yeah, once in a while there is a horrible tragedy.
Gun owners and gun controllers both think their way would make things safer. But so far the evidence is that more guns do not make you less safe.
So altho you think so, it would be a hugely costly experiment, that likely would work.
A. If that were true, it wouldn’t be modifying it at all, and B. Again, the Constitution is a statement of principle and intent. The writers presented a ready military force as their intent, but did not present anything else as their intent.
You can call it that if you like, but none of that actually made it into the debate or the document, did it? You’re forced to claim that what they said doesn’t matter, but that something they didn’t say is what they actually meant.
But you can keep blustering away on that point if you like. It just doesn’t convince anybody else.
Nobody says otherwise. But if you’d like to get something off your chest, go right ahead.
None of the others are so susceptible to willful misinterpretation that they needed it, either.
Ad hominem. Shrug. Next?
-
Okay, that was a bit snippy so I apologize and retract.
-
Yes, there are limitations on rights, but a basic part of having a militia is a citizen owning a gun. You cannot have one without the other.
-
Are we really doing this “well regulated” thing again? It means well trained, well school, well drilled. Not regulated to holy hell by the government. What would be the point of outlining a freedom only to state that it can be regulated out of existence by the government that the amendment attempts to limit?
State? Yes, a qualified militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That is a statement of principle. A militia is me and my law abiding friends and you and yours. In order to have that, we need guns.
No, the fact that you’re even asking it is proof that answering it wouldn’t help you understand why we have a Constitution.
And like I said- sure, for a while, then the numbers would go back up. Let say we executed all the violent offenders. All those in prison, all those just convicted. BAM! Bullet to the head. Would crime go down? Of course. But would it stay down? Evidence says elsewise.
Let say we make belonging to a violent org illegal- MS13, crips, Bloods, KKK, Hells Angels. Put them all in prison. Would crime go down? Sure. But would it stay down?
Too many? 300 Million guns. 10000 used ito murder. 1 in 30 thousand is too many? :dubious:
Well, can I ask that you just help an idiot like me out and explain it?
Yes, if the defense mounted a argument, Miller would have been decided the other way.
Not “a citizen”, but “the people”. That has evolved over years of legislation to mean the National Guard, whose right to own weaponry is indeed unquestioned.
If you want to discuss the entire amendment, then yes, you do.
If you think the Guard, and the permanent military that the government quickly created soon after realizing that militias would be inadequate, aren’t “regulated to holy hell” then maybe you should enlist and find out for yourself.
If you’re seeing some attempt by We The People to retain the ability to suppress insurrections by use of military force, well, hell yes, that’s elsewhere in the Constitution. Are you also making the NRA claim that there is somehow an intent to establish the means to *overthrow *the government by forces outside its control? If you’re going to be that silly, then maybe we’re done here.
Under the (well-) regulation of the State, IOW We The People together via the government we have created and established with the Constitution, not your local gang of yahoos. So apparently yes, you really are going to be that silly. Bye now.
If the conclusion which the Court reached hadn’t been so bleeding obvious and uncontroversial, then maybe there would have been a point in mounting an argument against it. 'Cause that’s what the situation was, that there was an obvious and generally accepted meaning of the amendment for most of our history. Now why do you think that was?
Then here is where we definitely part ways. How can the National Guard be considered a militia by the Framer’s definition? It is an arm of the (ultimately) federal government!
You might as well argue that the feds can create a “Free Speech Board” in each community and that through that board (and only through that board) are citizen complaints about the government heard.
The whole point of the Second Amendment is that the government, and especially the federal government, cannot monopolize force or the use of it. Standing armies were considered dangerous and citizen militias were the cure for that.
You cannot create an arm of the government and say “There is your citizen militia” which is wholly controlled and ran by the government. The government control was the very evil addressed, by intent and principle, in the Second Amendment.
No, there was no point and no defense as *Miller was dead *and no longer had a legal team.
Of course if still modifies it. For example: I like TV Show because of the acting. Is “because of the acting” a subordinate clause modifying “I like TV show.”? Yep. Is it necessarily the only reason that I could enjoy TV show and precludes any other reason? Nope. I could also enjoy the writing, directing, setting etc. and just didn’t add those for whatever reason.
And your second point is just as irrelevant and illogical as the first. Courts and legal scholars go to external sources to provide context for interpreting the law all the time, things like Congressional records for instance. In the case of the Constitution, courts and scholars have consulted records of the Convention as well as the writings of those involved with the drafting and ratification outside of the context of the Convention. That’s how actual judges and legal scholars do it. You should probably get right on telling them they’ve been doing it wrong this whole time.
And what they did say did matter, just not in the way you claim. And what they meant is evidenced by their words taken into context with other sources and considerations. Just like any other law.
And the huge body of case law concerning defining terms like “speech”, “probable cause”, “cruel and unusual” etc seems to suggest that many parts of the Constitution are subject to ambiguity as well. That’s how words work, they are inherently and necessarily ambiguous to one degree or another. That’s why we look to context. That’s how language works. Laws are written in words, so that’s how Courts go about interpreting those words. Maybe read a few hundred cases and get back to me on that.
And you seem to have the same problem understanding “ad hominem” as you have with “strawman.” Calling someone’s credentials, or lack thereof, into question when discussing a highly technical subject is not an ad hominem. That’s just how logic and credentials work. There’s a reason law is a highly regulated field normally requiring 3 years/90 credit hours of graduate school, followed by obtaining a license in every jurisdiction you want to practice in and then followed by constant professional regulation. It’s also why practicing law without a license is a crime in many jurisdictions. Do you argue with physicians over medicine as well? Argue with architects or engineers about building construction? With PhDs in their area if expertise? I mean I wouldn’t doubt that you do, but you really shouldn’t.
Well, we have laws that infringe the 1st Ad, also, dont we? Laws vs slander, Libel and kiddy porn. No right is absolute. Why do we accept those infringements on the 1st Ad?
Well, only a tiny few sickos want to look at kiddy porn. The good that such laws do- preventing the making of kiddy porn by raping and abusing a child- is worth the small infringement on our 1st Ad rights, since so few want kiddy porn anyway.
So, just like with heavy weapons- The good that such laws do- preventing the mass slaughter of thousands - is worth the small infringement on our 2nd Ad rights, since so few want howitzers anyway.