No, what he did was point out that claiming people are obliged to forgo their own self-defense to meet the requirements of a gun ban is an absurdity.
ElvisL1ves, if your position is that you think that the private possession of armed force is simply insane and that no civilized government could or should allow it; and that therefore the Second Amendment not only doesn’t mean an individual right but couldn’t possibly mean an individual right, and no such interpretation could possibly be correct- then please do us the favor of saying as much so we can accept that your position is axiomatically different from ours and therefore undebatable.
Abatis just claimed that the Second Amendment didn’t mean an individual right (or claimed that Scalia said it didn’t). Why don’t you take it up with him?
And as I said, would you care to explain your premise and cite its origin? I am quite willing to lay out my reasoning . . . The right to self defense is a pre-existing right, one that is among the inalienable rights that government has never been granted power over. Your position demands you somehow prove that government has been conferred the power to dictate to the people’s right to personal self defense.
Politically, the right is more expansive as it is the meat of our right to consent to be governed (which includes the right to RESCIND that consent). The right to political self defense is recognized in the right to BEAR arms as the act of self defense from a government that no longer abides by the principles of its establishment is an elementary concept of our republic.
Your position is based on a forced misreading. You would do yourself a favor if you read the case the *Miller *Court cited as formula forming for the Miller holding. That would be Aymette v State at page 158:
[INDENT]"As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them, is not, therefore, secured by the constitution.
A thousand inventions for inflicting death may be imagined, which might come under the appellation of an “arm” in the figurative (p.159)use of that term, and which could by no possibility be rendered effectual in war, or in the least degree aid in the common defence. Would it not be absurd to contend that a constitutional provision, securing to the citizens the means of their common defence, should be construed to extend to such weapons, although they manifestly would not contribute to that end, merely because, in the hands of an assassin, they might take away life?
The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing, or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defence is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand and the rulers on the other. And although this right must be inviolably preserved, yet, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited altogether from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed."
[/INDENT]
This is where the Miller Court established the ‘tests’ to determine if an arm is protected by the 2nd Amendment (which Heller follows).
These ‘tests’ (more accurately, "criteria’) are each separate and free-standing. each and all of them must be applied and either affirmed or rejected on their merits. If the type of arm meets any one of them then it can not be deemed ‘dangerous and unusual’ and the right to keep and bear that weapon must be preserved and the authority of government to restrict its possession is repelled.
Those criteria state that to be protected by the 2nd Amendment the arm must be:
[ul]
[li]In common use at the time and/or [/li][li]are usually employed in civilized warfare and/or [/li][li]that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or[/li][li]can be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. [/li][/ul]
Failing ALL those tests, the arm could then be argued to be “dangerous and unusual” and the legislature could be said to possess the legitimate power to restrict that type of arm.
That’s what Miller said and Heller follows it to the letter . . .
Where did I do that? Acknowledge your error, take that statement back or provide a link.
Again, I think that Obama and the anti-gun Dems are paralyzed by ignorance; they don’t have a clue how to craft ***any *** federal gun control laws that will pass muster under Heller so they are content to just bide their time and hold off until a Court can be created to “legally” approve whatever they politically want (but can’t enact legislatively).
Is it really your contention that gun rights supporters have nothing to worry about because Obama can be counted on to demonstrate respect for the traditions and heritage of hunting or target shooting or has grown to accept and respect the rights claimed by gun owners? If that is so please explain where Obama’s recent call for a new Assault Weapons Ban fit into your view.
At a minimum, for me, his call for a new AWB is enough for me to not trust him. And as far as that goes, there ain’t a thing you could ever say that would make me trust him. That you with your profoundly incorrect positions on the Constitution and the law and gun rights support and defend him, is, in and of itself, enough to condemn Obama as a charlatan and Trojan Horse for gun rights supporters.
This board has an easy to use quote function. please use it if you are going to present me as making a particular statement, especially one as ridiculous as that.
You know, I never expect posters like Elvis to ever back up their positions but I don’t consider my in depth replies / rebuttals as a waste of time. For each of us that are engaged in debate and post, there are dozens if not hundreds of interested lurkers who read these rabid anti-gunner’s ridiculous drivel and without reasoned, supported rebuttal they might consider it to be an accurate statement of things.
I strive to totally destroy their arguments and show them as being wrong on all planes; philosophical, historical, legal and constitutional. That’s the thing, pick any one of those planes and the anti-gun side is provably wrong; their incorrectness is perfect across all LOL. Requests for expansion of their position is met with strawmen and red herrings and requests for actual citations of the origins of their opinions are rarely acknowledged and never fulfilled.
I pine for them to cite their support and try to explain how it is formulated, sadly very few do and if done, the debate is never sustained. Their arguments and positions can not stand such attention and the proponents slink away from any conversations where such scrutiny is applied.
Elvis just knowsMiller supports him; he can’t explain how, he can’t demonstrate why, he just feels it in his bones to the point that it must be true.
And there is the problem with anti-liberty people, they hold their positions as emotional rather than logical constructs and thus fail miserably in any attempt defending them in debate.
The pathetic, empty claim of victory witnessed above is truly the best that he can do and all we should expect. That’s why I try to win the minds of readers before they succumb to the emotionally based gruel.
It’s funny that we often hear from their side that all we need to do is open our minds and we will see the error in our position . . . without realizing that the “pro-gun” position is a product of an understanding of the entirety of the rights theory of the Constitution, not a product of cherry-picking what liberty we like and want to protect.
You’re doing a great job,** Abatis**. I commend you, not only on your scholarship and well-crafted arguments, but on your patience. Frankly, after fighting this fight with my time and money for thirty years, it is a strain for me to even be civil to the antis. Thirty years of creeping incrementalism, willful ignorance, interpretations of the law spun from whole cloth, and general weaseling from the anti-gun lobby has me burned out on them.
Keep fighting the good fight.
I must applaud the both of you. You’ve turned a simple question involving the meaning of a phrase used in the 2nd Amendment into yet another “Us vs. Them” rally. Abatis’ post #207 has all the makings of an NRA speech, casting any and all who dare ask questions as devious anti-American dunderheads who hate liberty and The American Way. It has nothing to do with convincing others of your opinion, and everything to do with drawing applause from like-minded individuals. Way to add to the conversation.
Uhhhh, that’s what it is . . . Your side is using faulty reasoning and incorrect beliefs to try to steal liberty from me.
My post 207 was pleading with the anti-gun side to bring reasoned arguments to the table (well, shaming them). I’ve been doing this on-line gun debate thing for over 20 years and your side has devolved. That’s all post 207 was saying. You guys are losing because you have been arguing a myth supported by a mirage and now the truth (Heller) has quashed your argument by invalidating the feeble support for your positions, Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) and U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) (AKA, “militia right” / “state’s right” interpretations).
You can say that about post 207, that was gloating but you can’t say that about my other posts in this thread. You are quite welcome and warmly invited to dissect my posts and make the points that you think prove me wrong. As it stands now, Elvis and his pathetic claim of victory and now your post here attacking me personally without a shred of on-point rebuttal to points I have made, only proves my constitutional / legal arguments as well as my analysis in 207 of your side from a cognitive / psychological standpoint are correct and unassailable (at least with reason, logic and cited support).
My side? Why don’t you put away the enemies list and read my posts before you determine what “my side” is. Steal your liberties from you? Where do you pick up jingoistic crap like that?
Scumpup, if you have any accusations, make them to my face. This “I won’t talk to you, but I’ll talk about you” crap is childish, especially when you won’t provide any links to back you up.
Onward, then.
Assuming that the section of the 2nd Amendment brought to attention by the OP is for the establishment of an armed militia, and assuming that this is wholely separate from the rest of the Amendment that establishes a right for individuals to keep and bear arms, would it be out of order to officially separate the two sections by a period instead of a comma? If no one objects to this slight change, what congressional action would it take to accomplish it?
