Friggin’ A!
Not to mention that I find it a lot easier to walk down the street knowing that if I’m the target of a drive-by, I can shoot back.
You Brits wait until the cops get pissed off at you and start killing your kids and raping your wives and you have no way to fight back, all in the name of safety.
I disagree. Shooting a man in the arm or leg will not stop him, it won’t stop one who’s willing to rape a woman anyways. If anything, he’ll get more pissed and kill her.
It shouldn’t be an offense at all, really. In my mind, anyone who has done serious wrong to you, you should be able to kill without punishment.
But anyway, the most effective way to stop someone is to, well, kill them. I know that sounds cold, but hey, Survival of the Fittest.
Also, why is the age limit for handguns 21 and shotguns/rifles 18? If I buy a gun, I’m going to strap the sucker to my waist in plain view and walk down whatever street I damn well please. No one messes with a guy who has a gun and shows it off to everyone. But I’d have even more confidence carrying a 12-gauge everywhere.
Even though I am but an ignorant slacker that’s been spoonfed his education by hi-tech video games, I’ve always wondered why, whenever American gun ownership is discussed, the ubiquitous sentiment of ‘the right of an individual to own guns’ (guaranteed by the Constitution) has always come up when people defend American gun-ownership rights.
According to Presser v. Illinois (1886), the Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government not being able to interfere with the state running a militia. Furthermore, it said nothing about a State’s limit to regulate firearms. If the Texas state government decided that a militia would be more efficient if people gave up their guns and learned martial arts instead, they could indeed control and even ban arms.
In United States v. Warin, the SCCA held that, “It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with every argument made by defendant… all of which are based on the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states.”
I have more examples of the judiciary ruling that right to arm oneself is a state right, not an individual right, stored somewhere; but since I’m so darn lazy, I’ll probably just C&P from Steve Kangas’s site if anyone cares. His report is better than mine, anyway.
The point I’m trying to make is that owning arms is not an individual right for the American citizen. An American state could just so choose that any gun other than a squirt gun can be banned, and be within constitutional bounds. If the NRA really believes that constitutional rights are being violated by gun control, it should take it to the courts, instead of lobbying Congress.
The Mick, I don’t exactly know about why you have to be older to purchase a less powerful firearm, but I suppose its because a handgun is easier to conceal than, say, a rifle or a shotgun. Then again, that doesn’t really sound a responsible use for a gun in, like, the first place.
One thing I think we need to realize is that, in the US, a ban on the private ownership of guns simply would not work. It would not be obeyed.
Prohibition did not prevent people from drinking. The pre Roe vs. Wade abortion laws did not prevent abortion. The current war on drugs as an utter failure. Why does anyone think that outlawing gun ownership would work?
If the pvt ownership of guns was forbidden, the existing black market would expand to fill the newly greater need. Guns would be smuggled in from abroad. Guns would be manufactored clandestinely. People would make their own. If the police went house to house, confiscating guns, people would just go right out and buy new ones. People who had not previoulsly owned guns might decide to buy one, just out of anger at government interfearence with traditional liberties.
And just how would a ban be implimented? Would the police go house to house to confiscate them? Not everyone would give them up willingly. And would people be paid for the conficated guns? Would the confiscated guns be destroyed, like beer being poured down the drain during Prohibition?
The Second Amendment specifically states that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. If the Second Amendment only applies to militias, then by your logic the “right of the people peaceably to assemble” would apply only to those representatives that are elected. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” would apply only to those in government. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Does this mean that no one has rights except for specifically named organizations? Why would “people” be defined differently in one Amendment from the others?
And having brought up the Ninth Amendment, let me say this: Each individual has the right to defend himself or herself from harm. This is a basic biological right that is practiced in one way or another by all organisms. Even if the Second Amendment did not specifically say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and even if the intent of the Amendment was to insure that a tyrannical government gould be overthrown, the Ninth Amendment guarantees the right of the people to defend themselves; and since defense requires some sort of parity between the aggressor and the target, the right to have a gun for defense is clear.
More, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments say that property cannot be seized without warrants and due process, nor without compensation. There is also the assumption that a person is innocent of a crime unless (not until) proven guilty. Should a person be deprived of the enjoyment of the shooting sports because he might go crazy and shoot up a kindergarten? How many people go violently crazy every year? Should a person be arrested when he walks into a store because he might decide to shoplift? Will “impure thoughts” be made a crime, even when they are not acted upon?
Using the numbers supplied by Tranquilis, there were 544,880 gun-related violent crimes in 1994 and around 192,000,000 privately-held firearms in the country. Divide the latter into the former and the result is .0028379166666. Call it 0.3%. Granted those numbers do not represent guns used multiple time or people who committed crimes multiple times, but on average 99.7% of the guns in this country are not used to commit crimes. And the crime rate has gone down since 1994. Should the vast majority of people who enjoy shooting or collecting be penalized for the actions of three people out of 1,000? In a country that prides itself on the fairness of its people, this does not seem fair.
IIRC, this ruling came at a time when the Bill of Rights was seen by the court as applying only to the federal government; under this jurisprudence, the states were not specifically forbidden by the constitution from infringing on the right to bear arms, nor were they forbiden by it from infringing on the freedom of speech, or religion. The SC later changed it’s mind on this, and decided that the 14th amendment extended the restrictions in the Bill of Rights to the states.
I am not familiar with this decision. When was it? In any case, I have a rather radical and far fetched theory about the SC…sometimes it is wrong. Consider Plessy v. Fergason.
You seem to be making the assuption here that the government is allowed to do anything it is not specifically prohibited from doing. In fact, one of the principles of a free society, or at least free society as it is understood in the United States, is that the state can only do those things it is specifically authorized to do. Where would a federal or state government get the authority to ban “any gun other than a squirt gun”?
And even if we stick with your “anything not forbidden is allowed” theory, most states have their own versions of the Second Amendment in their own constitutions.
Thanks, Weird_Al, you saved me a bit of work there.
If only I knew how to quote properly. Argh. Here goes.
True, as far as that goes, but the Supreme Court has failed to uphold that gun control is a violation of a constitutional right. Even so, the inalienable rights of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition are routinely curtailed; you can’t have a religion which allows polygamy or human sacrifice or inside trade. The Court has yet to rule, as far as my video game-deadened brain knows, that right to bear arms (which I still contend is a right of the State’s militia) cannot be regulated, and in fact, has ruled that it can, several times.
First of all, unlike Plessy v. Ferguson, these Court rulings that I’m citing haven’t been overturned in any way. Furthermore, also unlike Plessy v. Ferguson, one has yet to prove that gun regulation is a violation of Constitutional rights; I’ve already provided ample evidence that the judiciary is a state right, not an individual right. Third, if you disagree with a ruling, you should challenge it. I disagreed with Bush v. Gore (or was it the other way around?), but until someone convinces the Court to overturn its ruling, it is law. The NRA of America already has huge political clout; why doesn’t it challenge gun control in the courts instead of Congress if it feels that it has its rights violated?
By the way, the United States v. Warin decision came in 1976. Check ‘http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/wais/data_files/aphrodite/case.cites’ I’m not quite low enough yet to make up judiciary rulings. Yet. (heh heh) This is probably nit-picking, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this, not the Supreme Court.
Exactly so. If the people should oppose a law a state makes (everyone must give Billy huge wads of cash when he goes to the arcade), then the people, by the use of the power to vote, should be able to overturn such a law. The Constitution is a safety net against more extreme laws, like Louisiana voting that everyone must convert to Unitarian Universalism.
And the state has the authority in itself to ban such objects. My home state of Tejas could rule tomorrow that Billy and his friends would have to turn in his Playstation because it might spontaneously combust. Unless they were prevented by the Constitution in banning my console, they could do that. As the right of an individual to own and bear arms exists as much as their right to unconditionally own Playstations (meaning that it doesn’t, as the judiciary has ruled), the state can regulate, even ban weapons and not violate the Constitution.
You’re only quoting the second half of the amendment, the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” part. The whole thing says “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. This distinction is important; Wayne World’s Wayne Campbell’s immortal quote ‘If you’re going to spew, spew into this’, changes meaning when you chop off the first half. The whole sentence means that Wayne’s partying friend can use the cup if he wants to barf. If we just use the second half, it’s like Wayne’s ordering the poor guy to vomit in the paper cup. As stated before, the judiciary has interpreted that the entire amendment is a right of a state, not the right of an individual. Despite the awkward wording of the sentence, me, the Judiciary Branch, and my Magruder’s American Government, Texas Edition textbook (p. 736), the Constitution of the United States has interpreted the second amendment something like: “Each State has the right to maintain a militia, a volunteer armed force for its own protection; however, both the National Government and the State can and do regulate the possession and the use of firearms by private persons.”
While the Ninth Amendment does say that unstated civil rights do exist, the Court has yet to rule if gun ownership is, and Congress hasn’t agreed to state gun ownership as one.
To address your other claim, technically, the Ninth Amendment makes no claim that people have a right to defend themselves. It concerns Unenumerated Rights, which declares that people have rights that are not openly and actively recognized and protected by the government.
First of all, the government, to actually do a ban on guns such that not only is purchase and use illegal, but mere ownership, would have to declare gun ownership in general was illegal, in the same way as marijuana and cocaine. Since that would subject huge amounts of populace to criminal behavior, a gun ban isn’t feasible in that way. Two, despite the fact that people are ‘innocent until presumed guilty’ doesn’t apply so that people who acually use weapons responsibily should be left alone from gun regulation. I’m quite sure that a number of people could actually drive, safely, in the car while drinking alcohol, but it doesn’t follow that the government shouldn’t ban drinking while driving because some, nay, most people would handle it responsibly. In fact, the challenge for gun control advocates is to prove that the problems associated with high gun ownership is high enough to mandate more regulation. I believe so, but that will be saved for another thread. Let me just say that if only 3 people got shot a year in America with our current gun-ownership level, we wouldn’t even be having this debate; since we have a far higher number, this exists. That’s why almost no one will argue that people should be allowed to own biological weapons, even if nearly everyone would use them responsibly. With less destructive weapons, the line is harder to draw.
But then, the whole point I was trying to make is that individual ownership of firearms is not a Constitutional right, not that we need a total gun ban.
And now, Marvel vs. Capcom 2 calls. I nearly got beat with my Jin / Captain Commando / Tron Bonne team at the arcade, so I need more practice.
Inapplicable questions. In each case, political process still worked. By definition, in a tyrany, political process for the people doesn’t work. Oh, and the phrasing is rather prejudical. Be civil, if you please: We’re debating here.
Incorrect.
From the Violence Policy Center:
As for attempting to overthrow, sever ties to, or defend against a government no longer responding to peaceful process, well, we’ve got quite a history of it. Anyone who’s missing this needs to go back and re-read their history. A short list of examples:
1775: the American Revolution
1794: The Whiskey Rebellion
1861: The American Civil War
1966: The Black Panthers. See point #10.
1973: AIM occupy Wounded Knee
1985: MOVE, Philadelphia, PA
1993: Branch Davidians, Waco, TX
1996: The Freemen, MT
Homework assignment:
I’d like to keep it that way.
There are other people who can discuss the dependent clause vs. independent clause arguements of the Second Amendment better than I can, so I’ll leave it to them. But I still say that “people” means the same throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and does not change its meaning for this one Amendment.
Therefore it does protect the right of a person to defend himself! As I stated in the first part of that paragraph, all organisms, sentient or not, practice self-preservation. Self preservation is the right of all living things. That makes self-defense an Unenumerated Right that is protected by the Ninth Amendment.
Careful. You’re about to stumble into a classic trap. Let me introduce you to an interesting piece of law:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/index.html
Search under ‘militia’
One of the Gun Control Movement’s more common fantasies is that only the standing military (Armed Forces, Reserves, and National Guard) constitute the militia. The fact is, if you’re male, citizen, and between 17 and 45, you’re a member of the militia, excepting for certain narrow conditions. Go git yer gun.
My figure of 50% was not exactly accurate; I apologize for that. But it has no effect on my argument. 25% of American adults own firearms. Some households have one adult and some households have two, so the percentage of American households that own firearms is between 25% and 50%. It follows naturally that criminals can expect to bump into armed citizens on a regular basis. I’ll ask my question again. How many Americans need to own guns before we’ll start to see crime rates drop?
Now back to the topic of fighting against government tyranny. I completly fail to see how your examples support the concept of armed rebellion against tyrannical government. At Waco, for example, we have a religious cult whose leader is a criminal. They hole up, kill four federal agents, and eventually committ suicide, or possibly their leader chooses to set the building on fire. So what is accomplished in the battle against government oppression? How did the fact of private gun ownership help the Branch Dravidians, other than allowing them to kill those four agents?
Obviously, we could spend all day discussing what constitutes government “tyranny”, but one fact won’t change: the government will never be able to keep everybody happy. Do you really want every group of pissed off citizens to be able to stage a full-scale attack on any outpost of the government just because they feel that they got the raw end of the deal from some particular piece of legislation?
And some households have two adults that own weapons, such as mine, or my father’s, or… You get the picture. Rather than concentrate on the numbers of households that contain weapons, better to concentrate on the numbers of armed persons, which is easier to confirm. As for how many are needed for a major change in cultural behavior, well, I dunno. I don’t think that subject has had a proper, unbiased study ever.
Here’s a parallel: The zealots at Massada. They were in a distinct minority, practiced religion differently than their contemporaries (else they’d have not been called zealots), killed many soldiers, holed-up in a fortified compound, and committed suicide rather than submit to the Gov’t. Were they patriots, criminals, or something else? If the Roman Gov’t had left them alone, what would’ve happened? Should the Roman gov’t have left them alone? The answer, I suspect, depends on your frame of reference.
You haven’t completed your homework. You’re missing a response on the other incidents on the list, and you response on Waco is missing a lot of anlysis. (BTW: Please be clear on what made the Davidians criminal. All surviving Branch Davidians were aquitted of charges stemming from their response to the raid. Not guilty of any crime stemming from their armed self-defense.)
Why was Koresh not arrested in town (he was there on several ocaisions)? Why did the Gov’t stage an armed hostile warrant delivery on a compound believed to be holding dozens of armed persons, without first asking for Koresh to submit to a search in a peacable manner? Why was a search warrant issued based upon the possesion of legally purchased inert grenade casings (the kind used as novelty compliaint department customer service number dispensers)? Were the actions of the Gov’t reasonable, or unreasonable? Were the Davidians ambushing the law, or were they defending themselves against the Gov’t? What happened with the Freemen, as viewed from the perspective of the Waco raid? How were they handled differently from the Branch Davidians? What proceedural and institutional changes were made? Would those changes have taken place if the Davidians hadn’t fought?
How about AIM and Wounded Knee? Was that in any way similar to the above two instances, and if so, what changes in Governmental behavior took place?
Nor should the Gov’t have to keep everyone happy. The Gov’t also shouldn’t be behaving in a manner that creates the kind of dissafection that leads to armed resistance. The people have the need, and in this country, posses the means, to keep the Gov’t more-or-less honest. And yes, I like it that way. BTW, when was the last “full scale attack” on a Gov’t outpost? Or are you using hyperbole? (and no, OK City wasn’t a “full scale attack”) If I’ve missed something, please bring me up to date.
Please note: I in no way support the intentions and behaviors of any particlar group I’ve used for an example. I actually think most of them were criminal. But (and this is key) they felt otherwise, and couldn’t get the Gov’t to listen to them, or felt they had no time to talk. Few revolutionaries are actually admirable, especially not to the people they’re rebelling against, and many rebellions are for purposes less than laudable. It doesn’t make them any less rebellious. Don’t make the mistake of believing that a person fighting for some thing you don’t like isn’t a revolutionary. Failed revolutionaries are called criminals. Successful ones are called patriots. A Government that works as it should limits the existance of one, and the need for the other.
Man, it’s still raining in Southeast Texas. I wanna go to the pool. Guess I’ll just frequent this board for a lil’ bit.
Of course, this don’t be meanin’ anythang. The State could just so say that firearms (except for people in the state militia, of course) are illegal for private use, like you said. In fact, the State could do a complete ban on firearms and require its troops to be equipped with a flamethrower or learn ancient forms of Greco-Roman wrestling, if they thought that’d be a better way to run a militia.
Oh, by the way, you can bite me for that straw man; it was unnecessary to make your point. It’s true for me, but I’d hardly say that it’s representative for most of the gun control advocates.
Actually, it means plenty. It means that, excepting for specific exemptions, every male between 17 and 45 in the country can be called to defend the nation or otherwise participate in armed action under Federal mandate, as that’s Federal law. This is the basis upon which the draft rests, among other things.
Hmmm… Who said? I don’t think it was me, but whatever…
Actually, not too bad an angle, and one of the few original ones I’ve heard recently. I suspect that, provided strong controls were put into place to prevent denial of access / loss of property, a state could Constitutionaly get away with requiring all firearms be kept in armories. It’d be political suicide trying that in today’s climate, but it’s theoretically doable. Mind you, the weapons would have to be freely available for practice, and the state would have to bear the cost of maintaining the armories ($$!). We need a good Constitutional legal scholar in here to take look at that approach.
Hmmm, again. I’ve seen that point trotted out in at least two threads in SDMB, I’ve heard it from HCI, I’ve heard it from The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, I’ve heard it from the Brady Campaign… I could go on, the list is real lengthy. Yes, it is representative. Perhaps you’d find a little research on your fellows useful. They’re saying things you don’t know about.
Ya know, there should be no mystery whatsoever. The writers of the Constitution put all this very plainly in a series of papers called The Federalist.
Concerning the proper make-up and roll of the militia, allow me to quote a couple paragraphs from Federalist Twenty-nine.
As we can see here, the authors of the Constitution did not believe the new nation would be able to economically support a standing army, nor did they think it advisable on security grounds. However, they saw an armed populace as the best and necessary guarantee against a corrupt national military should it arise. This is very simple. There need be no debate on the original purposes of the 2nd amendment.
Ah, yes, the Federalist Papers. I’m regretably not well enough familiar with those to debate their contents, but I was pretty sure, sooner or later, that someone would come along who was.
SCUSA has never ruled that the SA does not specify an individual right, in any case that has come before it.
It has ruled that citizens do not have a right to keep and bear machine-guns, on the argument that machine guns, although military weapons, are not militia weapons, with the militia being defined by the Founding Fathers as the entire adult civilian citizenry.
The only people who argue that the phrase, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary…etc” limits its applicability to state and national military organizations are gunophobics who do not understand what the colonial militia was. It specifically was NOT the Continental Army or any other governmentally run military or police organization. Indeed, the Continental Army and the militiamen did not always work together. The Patriot, the Mel Gibson movie, accurately depicts the differences and frequent diasagreements. Furthermore, the Founder’s own personal and public writings on the RKBA clearly indicate that they meant this right to belong to the citizens themselves.
Furthermore, if you want to indulge in the kind of word-bending that the gunophobes love to apply to the SA, try this argument on for size. Let’s say that the protasis of the SA does serve to explain some limiting purpose of the SA…and that “militia” refers to a state-run armed organization…You could argue that “well-regulated militia” means a state army that is “regulated” (i.e. limited) in its power over the populace by the fact that the populace is allowed the right to keep and bear arms.
“gunophobia is a mental illness.”
Today, little Billy gathers his thoughts enough to respond effectively to posts that have been sitting around in board lingo for about a week.
But enough of my bitching about my general disorganization and stupidity. Let’s address the claims made by the others.
But then, the point I was trying to make is that a militia could still enact a general firearms ban within its own ranks, and order that their troops would learn swordsmanship, if the militia leaders so decided that they could defend the people better with claymore swords. Along with a second ban on firearms by the state that prohibits gun ownership for civilian use (which wouldn’t violate second amendment rights), we would have, in fact, a general ban on the usage of guns.
Yes, I’ve seen the damning evidence on the other threads that gun control advocates want a general ban (in the form of quotes, no less). Here’s what the actual homepages have to say for themselves. BTW, The HCI was absorbed by either the Brady Campaign or the CTSGV. I forget which one.
Of course, if the implication is that gun-control organizations, at best, have ulterior motives or, at worst, are outright lying about their goals, people who claim that have an uphill battle. And it wouldn’t do much good, anyway. Here are just a sample of quotes from the gun-ownership rights side (from the big cheeses there, no less).
So. The ulterior motive thing can work both ways. BUT (there’s always a but), the big point I was trying to make is that cites, innuendo, and personal jabs like yours and mine don’t help public discourse.
As a side note, remember that there was a group of people called The Anti-Federalists, who wrote, appropriately, the Anti-Federalist papers (see http://www.constitution.org/afp/afpchron.htm). Of course, they were the guys who wanted a Bill of Rights. Aside from the fact that the Federalists often had their points modified by the anti-Federalists, the ideas of checks against a large national army (by, of course, having a well-armed State militia) was an anti-Federalist idea, by Brutus. (http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus10.htm)
The Federalists refuted his point (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa24.htm, among others), and any incarnation of the Second Amendment would not have existed without the Bill of Rights. If the writers of the Constitution had, plainly, had their intentions reflected as is, there wouldn’t be the “right to bear arms”
While the Federalist Papers were ambiguous about the necessity of bearing arms being a militia’s right (which are run by the state) or an individual right, the judiciary has, nearly always, interpreted it (the Constitution, not the papers) as the right of a State. Even though I usually balk at such ‘I said it, so this is so, end of story’ statements such as ‘There need be no debate on the original purposes of the 2nd amendment’, I suppose there’s no need, as the U.S. Courts do seem to already agree on what the original purposes of the 2nd amendment is.
…AND the Courts, AND the Federalists, AND my history books and government books do this, too. We’re not a fringe element, as you so like to paint. So, like, blow me.
Also, I think that strictly converting the SA for today is counter-productive, as American society has changed so much that the need for a defense against a tyrannical national gonverment is no longer needed. Of course, I’d have preferred to do the whole gun-control spiel on a Cost-Benefits criteria, but since many gun-ownership rights supporters want to argue on a criteria of Constitutionality, I can do that, too. I’m flexible, if nothing else.
Damn, I sure do wish I didn’t return that book on the American Revolution back to the library. So, unfortunately, I’ll have to argue from memory. Feel free to correct me.
One, the militias were generally a city-run organization ran by able-bodied men. Oh, sure, the states had some control, but control over the little elements was filtered down the same way a city has more direct control than a county which has more direct control than a state.
BUT, the reason why minutemen (they were only called this after Samuel Adam’s propaganda and a few years before the American revolution) privately owned arms was for the militia. The militia not only had soldiers provide their own arms, but also their own uniforms (American soldiers went in rags throughout most of the war) and other supplies. So, if you were an able-bodied man who was part of the militia, it made sense that you privately owned arms.
But then, the SA applies to a State’s militia, which was and is different from the militias of then.
The citizens as part of the militia no less. I hate to repeat myself, but arming oneself as an individual right is not a right protected by the Constitution. It is by the state. The judiciary has interpreted this as so.
Where does the populace’s right (of keeping and bearing arms) exist? Not in the Constitution, as I contend. And the state could trod on the non-existing right of individuals to bear arms on the grounds that it doesn’t exist. It’s like robbing a bank that hasn’t been built.
Assuming that you mean regulated in the sense that the militia can’t assume certain things (such as order every troop to go in Speedos), that’s a decision by the people who run the militia to decide. If the people didn’t want to wear Speedos into battle, they could petition, demonstrate, or whatever in hopes of getting the leaders to change their mind (as long as it was legal). But, then, nothing is pre-emptively stopping the Powers that Be from deciding that a militia is going to have to throw away all of its guns. Furthermore, the militia has no direct control over what the civilian populace can do (aside from, of course, drafts and the like). The same relationship goes in reverse, since, as far as I know, military leaders are not elected by the general populace. The state can ban firearms for civilian use entirely (if they feel that a militia can be better run without one) and the federal government can ban firearms insofar as it doesn’t violate a state’s right to run a militia.
My ignorance of military matters show here. Again, correct me on the processes if I’m wrong.
Cute, but I like this one better.
Shamelessly ripped off from the late Steve Kangas’s website:
In United States v. Warin, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1976 upheld the conviction of an illegal gun-owner who argued that his Second Amendment rights had
been violated. In pointed language, the court wrote: “It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with every argument made by defendant…all of which are
based on the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states.”
…
…
…
Man, that was a long post. I think I owe it to myself to play some Grandia II. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Neurodoc:
Slight nitpick Doc: my rights weren’t “granted” to me by anyone or any document; they existed for me from the moment my mother’s obstetrician smacked my ass and I drew my first unassisted breath.
Other than that, I agree.
Billy Lee: you seem to be overlooking some rather obvious facts. First to address “the militia” issue. You claimed that:
Reread what Tranquilis posted again, and pay particular attention to the following:
Wouldn’t you agree that that is a rather sweeping chunk of the population? "Population, as defined by M-W, is:
Emphasis mine, of course.
Yes, I suppose any official militia (as opposed to a self-styled militia organization) could decide to disarm itself, but that would be a bit self-defeating, wouldn’t it? The Claymore sword, and swords in general, were rendered quite useless as battlefield weapons with the advent of the firearm, specifically the repeating firearm. So retrofitting the armaments of any real militia would be counterproductive, from a force composition standpoint.
Now, if you want to debate the current efficacy of a militia, and therefore its continued usefullness…well, we’ve done that here in GD, too. Read what we’ve discussed here. While the OP was debunked fairly quickly, several of us argued (ad nauseum, it seemed) over the relative merits, and current effectiveness, of any nominal militia (not to be confused with self-styled “militias”).
Your scholaraly research into court rulings also overlooked several key rulings from quite recently (a fact that Mr. Kanga undoubtedly just happened to “miss” in his quest for impartiality and objectivism).
And yes, I have a problem with you quoting from an obviously biased source as Mr. Kanga, HCI, and any other pro-gun organoization that routinely distorts facts, or hires their own researchers to churn out junk science to support their goal (which they’ve gotten smart about admitting publicly).
Now here’s some irony for ya:
From the NRA:
Compare what the NRA says with what I was able to dig up at Findlaw.com
From United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez:
Note the similarities between what the NRA says and the 6-3 ruling of the Supreme Court?
And there’s always United States v. Emerson, in which a federal judge openly ruled that the 2nd Ad. was unequivocally an individual right (note: no one, not I, my pro-gun counterparts here or in the NRA, are currently arguing, or ever have argued, the the 2nd Ad. was an unrestricted right). The case was argued on appeal in the Fifth Circuit, and while no decision has been handed down yet :rolleyes: , it is encouraging that two of the three judges hearing the arguments expressed open skepticism of the government’s position, namely the “collective” or “state’s right” theory of interpreting the 2nd. Ad.
It is also interesting (and, after 8 years, comforting as well) that our new Attorney General supports the “individual’s right” interpretation, in keeping with the vast majority of current legal scholarhip. Being as you are from Texas, I’ll direct your attention to an article from a fellow Texan, Prof. Sanford Levinson, and his The Embarrassing Second Amendment. Cecil likes him too; from 1995’s “What does the ‘right to bear arms’ really mean?”
Some light summer reading, for your edification. Enjoy! 