Did you miss the part where I explained that SCOTUS has interpreted the 7th Amendment that way pretty much forever?
Part IV of my explaining Long’s idiocy:
Long now begins a conversation with himself minimizing if not contradicting nearly everything he “established” in the preceding paragraphs . . .
[INDENT]“It seems unimportant to decide if the “people” are individuals or a collective, since the understanding of arming oneself 230 years ago was that people would bring their arms, i.e., the guns they owned, to the defense of the state. Maybe the state would also supply some offensive arms, but the natural reading/assumption of the second clause is that individuals had guns.” [/INDENT]
Uhhhhh, OK? So the individual right to own guns is not created or given or granted by the Amendment? You understand that “individuals had guns” before any militia powers were granted and the 2nd was ratified? Cool, for a minute there I thought you were arguing that the “first clause” of the 2nd modified that pre-existing individual right into a conditioned, qualified collective privilege secured for a limited class of the people.
Now this conversation turns schizophrenic:
[INDENT]“We can’t just say that the first clause is a “preamble” and then dismiss it. It is text. It is a dependent clause, to be sure, but a clause that carries meaning. The central features of that first clause are the words/phrases “Militia” and “well-regulated.” We need to see the “right” conferred in the second half of the sentence as dependent on the phrases in the first half of the sentence.”[/INDENT]
LOL, so the first clause is dependent and the second clause is dependent on the first??? Now we have two dependent clauses? Is this guy for real?
Now Mr Long dives head first into some deep examination of dependent clauses (which I guess is made easier?? if a sentence has two dependent clauses and no independent clause LOL).
[INDENT]"If the first phrase had said, “The freedom of religion in all ways being essential to a free people,” and then the clause had followed, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” you would naturally try to understand the freedom to keep/bear arms in the context of freedom of religion. Maybe there would be a religious duty to keep arms, etc. "[/INDENT]
Only an idiot would so ardently demand the recognition of the “dependent” condition but extinguish the entire existence and significance of an independent clause’s independence! Well, I guess it is understandable being that he says there are two dependent clauses :smack: .
Now Mr Long demonstrates just how divorced he is from the philosophical and historical foundation of the 2nd Amendment and he proves his is an outcome based analysis:
[INDENT]"So, you have to relate the two clauses to each other. When you come to this realization, you see that the right, whether it is individual or collective, is to be exercised in the context of the “well-regulated Militia.”[/INDENT]
We must first remember what the impetus was for the Bill of Rights. Those provisions were demanded by the states and the people to further restrain the powers of the federal government. The framers of the Bill of Rights had an assortment of proposed arms amendments from the states to consider and they were nearly identical to state provisions which the framers were also familiar with. These proposed amendments and provisions in force in the state bills of rights combined securing the right to arms of the citizen with prohibitions on standing armies. The framers understood the inaction of dependent, declaratory clauses and and the action of independent restrictive clauses.
The 2nd Amendment has three different “subjects” or philosophical concepts contained within it. The inactive, dependent declaratory clause is an affirmation of a tenet of our republic and speaks to the general militia principle and thus also denounces standing armies. The active, independent restrictive clause recognizes and secures the pre-existing right to arms so the militia principle can be realized. The right to arms is the means to achieve the 2nd Amendment’s object.
In an examination of the record we see how common the intermingled subjects of right to arms and standing army were being combined in a single provision. This was unremarkable and accepted because both had the same object, to restrain the power of government in the realm of domestic military affairs/action against citizens.
Let’s examine some state provisions from the period before the Constitution and Bill of Rights were enacted:
[INDENT]1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.
1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State—and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.[/INDENT]
Again, the framers were very accustomed to inactive declarations of principle in constitutional provisions; nobody believed these provisions really forbade the forming and maintaining of a standing army; these were state constitutional provisions with zero effect beyond the state line. They were merely stating an ideal that standing armies in time of peace were dangerous to liberty . . .
The inactive, dependent declaration, “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” is inextricably meshed (philosophically) with the inactive, dependent declaration, “as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty”. To the founders each represented the **exactly **the same sentiment.
So Mr Long, there is how a clause can be inactive and have no power but still have meaning!
to be continued . . .
Well, it appears Stoid is not going to defend the ConLaw authority (LOL) he presented in this thread . . . So, I’ll rebut some posters here.
There was a period beginning in 1942 when the “state’s right” and “collective right” perversions were first created in the lower federal courts and much damage was permitted to the liberty of the citizens. Thankfully, in 2008, the Supreme Court re-righted the constitutional ship regarding the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment.
There is still plenty of cases to be brought, especially in the states to repel unconstitutional laws.
I think the framers are celebrating the return of fundamental constitutional principles.
The thought that the 2nd Amendment was intended to “create a right” whoever it belongs to would be considered absurd by the framers.
The “intent” of the 2nd Amendment, just like the other provisions that secure pre-existing rights, is to forbid the government from exercising powers it was never given. I don’t have the right to keep and bear arms because I believe the 2nd Amendment “created” the right fo me, or gave it to me or that it was granted tome . . I have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to government to even contemplate the personal arms of the private citizen.
Your interpretation of the provision and your position on what the right to arms is and to whom it belongs, is the manifestation of the exact reasons the Federalists opposed adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.
Do you consider yourself a usurper?
It is you who is deconstructing the Constitution and remolding it into something foreign. The Court only re-affirmed the most fundamental, inseperable and important principles of our Constitution; those of conferred powers and retained rights.
The Court didn’t find the right to arms, they found no constitutional power to enact the contested laws.
The Court has been very consistent in affirming that our rights do not emanate from the Constitution and your reading is a direct and egregious violation of the Constitution.
[INDENT]" . . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, . . . . "[/INDENT]
If the right to keep and bear arms is NOT, “in any manner dependent upon [the Constitution] for its existence” precisely how do you “interpret” the words of the 2nd Amendment UPON WHICH THE RIGHT DOES NOT DEPEND into a command that the right be qualified, conditioned and restricted when the 2nd Amendment, like all the others, was only intended to, “to restrict the powers of the national government”.
Why are YOU so intent in violating the Constitution and dismissing and ignoring the clear and long standing determinations of the Supreme Court? As I said before, your misrepresentaion is exactly what the Federalists warned us about.
The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers. We the People surrendered limited powers to the government through the Constitution and retained that not surrendered.
Congress was granted warmaking powers and thus the exclusive power to control the weapons of war follows that. Because of this supremacy, laws that restrict access for the citizenry and the states to the weapons of war are constitutionally legitimate.
The principle is quite evident in the Constitution itself.
During the Revolutionary War we had no Navy but many private citizens outfitted ships into Man o’ War’s and “Privateers” harassed and seized over 600 British ships during the war.
After the war in drafting the Constitution Congress was granted the power to “grant letters of marque and reprisal*” which were the official permissions and orders to operate these ships, which were the most devastating weapons of the day and again, were OWNED BY PRIVATE CITIZENS.
The principle behind that reservation of power is applicable and extended into modern times to restrict private citizens from owning the armaments of war like missiles and rockets and cannon and other indiscriminate weapons and most certainly chem/bio/nuke WMD’s that the framers couldn’t have imagined.
Since the right to own the major arms of war was surrendered, the 2nd Amendment is not a claimable immunity from laws restricting them.
- Article I, § 8, "Congress shall have the power:, cl 11, “To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:”
The Supreme Court has always been correct for “pro-gun people”. Granted, Miller was poorly written but it does not stand, in anyway shape or form, that the right to arms is “collective” or “militia conditioned” or actually a “right of the states”. These purposeful misconstructions of Miller were begun in 1942 when the 1st Circuit dismissed and ignored the clear determinations of SCOTUS in Miller* (my analysis of Cases is below, proving this).
Between Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) and U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) the “militia conditioned” and “state’s / collective right” theories were hatched in the federal court system.
These perversions of Miller were allowed to continue oppressing the citizenry until SCOTUS finally spoke again on the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment in Heller slapping down these lower court inventions.
There isn’t one SCOTUS case that does not stand for the “individual right independent of militia attachment” interpretation of the 2nd and I challenge anyone to try to prove otherwise.
*MY ANALYSIS OF CASES
The Cases court quotes Miller’s familiar paragraph:
[INDENT]“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.”[/INDENT]
And then analyzes it: (paragraph breaks added)
[INDENT]"Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.
However, we do not feel that the Supreme Court in this case was attempting to formulate a general rule applicable to all cases. The rule which it laid down was adequate to dispose of the case before it and that we think was as far as the Supreme Court intended to go.
At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well know fact that in the so called ‘Commando Units’ some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon.
In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,-- almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,-- is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute.
Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result"
[/INDENT]
Well, it is no wonder they opine that Miller formulated no rule. The reason this had to be done was that by then, it was a “well known fact” or as the Miller court said, “within judicial notice,” that all guns have military usefulness.
So, the shotgun that the *Miller *court said, “has no reasonable relationship, . . .” is now, absolutely an arm beyond the reach of the NFA '34.
Thus, all guns would be protected, including the Cases appellant’s .38 caliber revolver and nearly all gun control laws would be struck down. Expressing how uncomfortable the court was with what it deemed to be the inevitable societal implications of the Miller rule actually being applied, the Cases court simply rejected Miller and opine that the framers couldn’t have imagined anything like unfettered (federally) firearm access that Miller demands. They offer no philosophical, historical, or legal foundation for that opinion it just is**.
But now the judges were faced with a dilemma. The law could afford them no comfort, the law was a bed of nails.
This realization, I would go so far as to say it manifested itself as a panic, forced them to turn to their only solace, their only redemption . . . What’s the old saying? “When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts.”
The opinion continues: (emphasis added)
[INDENT]“We therefore turn to the record in the case at bar. From it it appears that on or about August 27, 1941, the appellant received into his possession and carried away ten rounds of ammunition, and that on the evening of August 30 of the same year he went to Annadale’s Beach Club on Isla Verde in the municipality of Carolina, Puerto Rico, equipped with a .38 caliber Colt type revolver of Spanish make which, when some one turned out the lights, he used, apparently not wholly without effect, upon another patron of the place who in some way seems to have incurred his displeasure. **While the weapon may be capable of military use, or while at least familiarity with it might be regarded as of value in training a person to use a comparable weapon of military type and caliber, still there is no evidence that the appellant was or ever had been a member of any military organization or that his use of the weapon under the circumstances disclosed was in preparation for a military career. **”[/INDENT]
So, the* Cases *court stipulates that the appellant’s revolver meets the Miller standard of protection but they can’t abide by that . . . They now make the incredible leap of deciding the state of mind of the person is the determinant condition for claiming a 2nd Amendment right infringement.
The Cases court changed the rules, they required that the person, as a prerequisite to maintaining a 2nd Amendment claim, have as his intent in using the firearm, essentially his paramount concern, the maintenance and preservation of the militia! If the gun isn’t used by the military, its use is only protected if that use is “in preparation for a military career.”
This First Circuit court offered absolutely no basis other than personal feelings for its ultimate conclusion about the *Miller *decision and ignoring the obvious determinations required by it. No substantiation was given either for the leap it took, regarding the status of the citizen and the focus of his intent.
The obvious explanation for the above perversion of law is the court undoubtedly felt that, as a matter of public policy, any meaningful limitation upon the government’s power to restrict private ownership of firearms was unacceptable.
This case was not decided on the law or precedent or the intent of the framers. It was decided for political reasons, none of which had as their concern, adherence to the Constitution, endurance of the founding principles or the continuation of this Republic.
How about this amendment: “Working fax machines, being necessary for communication, the right of the people to have electricity shall not be infringed.” In 2020, when there are no more fax machines and everything is scan and email, does it follow that the people no longer have a right to electricity?
In other words, does any grant of a right which specifies a reason for that right, make that reason an exclusive one and when that reason no longer exists, does the right that it confers automatically go away? Let’s just make the assumption that the founders ONLY had the militia in mind for the purpose.
I think not. Not without an amendment.
ElvisL1ves.
Of course not, such a construction is preposterous and forces us to violate the rules of dependent and absolute clauses. The independent, “right to the people” clause can stand on its own without the dependent clause and remains true and actionable without regard to what the dependent clause actually says, even if the dependent clause doesn’t apply.
I can’t understand how anti’s read all this crap into the 2nd!
A dependent clause might explain why something is being done or why an action is prudent but it should not be read (or interpreted) as creating an iron clad rule or condition upon the independent clause. The dependent clause can be a complete misrepresentation, it being false or illogical does not alter the independent clause. An example:
[INDENT]Being a violent and dangerous criminal, Steve shall be put to death at sunset.
Being a wonderful and generous person, Steve shall be put to death at sunset.[/INDENT]
No matter what kind of guy Steve is, he’s taking the dirt nap at sunset.
Another simple one:
[ul]
[li]All things considered, that is a really bad idea.[/li][/ul]
Whether or not the idea is bad or not, does not really depend upon if ALL things were actually, truthfully and exhaustively considered. Really, who will decide how many considerations “all” actually is and how deep we must weigh alternate outcomes to decide if this obvious one is bad or good?
Interpreting dependent clauses as conditioning leads to ever increasing levels of minutiae that can be said to be applicable upon the independent clause and that is absurd . . .
Let’s examine another very simple one:
[ul]
[li]The teacher being ill, all classes will be canceled today.[/li][/ul]
Can classes only be canceled if the teacher is sick?
What if he is really lying about being sick and is actually out playing golf; will classes be held?
Must class always be canceled if the teacher is ill, even if it’s just the sniffles or a cough?
Interpreting dependent clauses as conditioning leads to ever increasing levels of minutiae that can be said to be applicable upon the independent clause and that is absurd . . .
Let’s see if we can force reading qualifications and conditions onto the independent, restrictive clause in a sentence grammatically constructed more like the 2nd Amendment with a dependent declaratory clause preceding the independent restrictive clause . . .
[ul]
[li]A well maintained road system being necessary to efficiently commute to and from work, the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles shall not be infringed.[/li][/ul]
Has a mandate been created that a governmental entity build and always maintain the “well maintained road system” and that system must exist for the people to be allowed to keep and drive cars?
Can the people only drive on this governmentally maintained road system?
Can the people only use their automobiles to commute to and from work?
Can the people only drive on those specific roads deemed by the government to be “necessary” for commuting and then further deemed “efficient”?
Can retired persons or -stay at home- Moms or the unemployed or the independently wealthy be “deautoed” because they do not work thus they don’t need to commute thus they don’t “need” their cars?
Can working people be prosecuted for taking a scenic route to and from work; is the most efficient route the only one deemed “legal?”
Interpreting dependent clauses as conditioning leads to ever increasing levels of minutiae that can be said to be applicable upon the independent clause and that is absurd . . .
Let’s examine another, this one nearly identical to the 2nd Amendment:
[ul]
[li]A well educated electorate being necessary for the perpetuation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.[/li][/ul]
Can people who are** not** registered voters (the actual, active electorate) have their right to keep and read books “infringed?”
Can members of the electorate deemed not well educated have their right to keep and read books infringed?
Are only those books deemed “necessary to the perpetuation of a free state” to be owned and read?
Can access to books deemed NOT “necessary to the perpetuation of a free state” or deemed to not directly enhance the maintenance of the intelligence of the, “well educated electorate” be restricted with permits / licenses / tax stamps?
Can books that openly threaten the “perpetuation of a free state” be banned, confiscated and destroyed and the owners and publishers prosecuted?
Interpreting dependent clauses as conditioning leads to ever increasing levels of minutiae that can be said to be applicable upon the independent clause and that is absurd . . .
Hopefully everyone answered NO to all those questions.
It makes me wonder how such nonsense get read into the 2nd Amendment.
Sorry, you did specify “in this thread.”
However, given the lengthy history of these Second Amendment debates, I see no reason why anyone can’t mine previous threads for the positions and arguments used by others in the past.
Huh? I had to scroll all the way back to Page 1 to find out what the hell you were referring to, but no, it was just ExTank doing his religious witnessing again. But yes, this is the designated forum for that.
Here’s a helpful hint, since you apparently didn’t listen to your Civics teacher either. Una, you might learn something too: A Supreme Court ruling is authoritative. Whether you like it or not, it’s the law. Whether the hacked up the reasoning or not, it’s the law. Ergo, the Miller ruling that defined militia use as necessary for the Second “right” to apply was law. Until Heller added self-defense as another activating precursor. And it doesn’t fucking matter what any of us thinks about that either, it’s now law too.
Got it now? At long last? :rolleyes: Or do you want to go on further with your silly, choleric misrepresentations of simple facts you’ve had explained to you? Gawdamm, son …
Fortunately, we’re discussing “the meaning of the Second Amendment as written”, not “current Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding the Second Amendment”.
Okay, but the persons I was responding to aren’t. Or at least they’re taking the common view that, if you don’t like a law, you have a right and even an obligation to resist it by violent means.
I remain constantly bemused by how contorted, um, “detailed” the logic has to be to conclude that the Second means the opposite of what it itself says it means, or that half of it means nothing at all.
Except that several posters, myself included, have given informed and rational reasons why the phrase “well regulated militia” meant something different in the late-Eighteenth century than what people suppose it to mean today; and that the original meaning undercuts the arguments denying that the right to keep and bear arms is a personal and individual right. Language mutates. “Mean” originally was a synonym for stingy, miserly, tightfisted; the modern useage is a shortening of “mean-spirited”. Or are you like the bible-thumpers who point to the passage in the King James translation where Jesus says “Suffer the little children to come unto me” and claim that that means that corporal punishment is essential to raise one’s children as good Christians?
And as for “the constitution only means what the Supreme Court says it means”, well then by golly maybe a current or future Court can completely reverse Miller and the restrictive rulings derived from it, just like Brown v. Board of Education tossed out Plessy v. Ferguson. Or do you believe that Stare Decisis is absolute and the court’s decisions are engraved in stone forever?
Fine, believe whatever you want about what the words should or did or do mean. Beliefs and arguments on the topic obviously make a great outlet for recreational self-righteousness. Just remember that the opinion that matters, the *only *one that does, is that of the Supreme Court. The relevant operative decisions are Miller and now *Heller *too. Those are law, not just an opinion you may agree or disagree with. Is that hard to follow? Really?
No, stare decisis is not absolute into the future, and nothing I said can be construed that way by someone who paid any attention to it. Please. :rolleyes: Yes, of course the law can changed by future rulings, the Constitution can be amended, etc. If you’re confused about any of the details of how our system works, just ask your Civics teacher, in the way that ExTank and Una clearly never did. :rolleyes:
IOW, if you don’t like limitations on this claimed absolute right, you can either work to get an amendment passed, or work to get enough Justices on the bench who agree with you strongly enough to follow through, or you can follow through on your claimed, Founding-Fathers-guaranteed right to resist violently … or you can just keep whining on some damn Internet board. If you plan to do that, to take the ExTank route and argue with your own imagination about what you’re having explained to you, then good day.
Says the sanctimonious authority on everything with 22K posts. LOL
No shit. Pissy little bitch, ain’t he?
You seem to be under the misapprehension that you are in a court of law. This is a message board. We can jaw on and on about anything we like. And I further argue that it is the DUTY of citizenry in a democracy to examine the law, settled or not, and decide if they think it is good law, and then vote appropriately when the time comes. So this debate is not just permissible but a good thing.
Well, at a minimum he seems to be unable to distinguish me, who wasn’t talking about him and didn’t post his name, with you, despite his claims of having a godlike IQ. He also can’t figure out what I posted was actually mostly in agreement with what he posted in this thread, and further is determined to get in a few odd direct personal insults about what I did or didn’t learn from “civics teacher(s).”
That being said, I wish you hadn’t rattled his metaphorical cage I don’t need to be post-stalked by him like he’s been doing to Bricker now for more than a year; I just don’t have either the time or the professional qualifications to deal with obsessive personalities like that.