# The Department of Justice: 2nd Amendment upholds individual, not collective rights **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 25, 2005, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868 "2005-02-25T14:22:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/81 "2005-02-26T16:47:14Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Yes, authored. Your links do NOT substantiate this. Authored means “wrote”. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/82 "2005-02-26T17:09:01Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Your links do NOT substantiate this. Authored means “wrote”. Yes. Gonzales WROTE the Jan 2002 memo. Click the link and read it for yourself. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/83 "2005-02-26T17:39:33Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Yes. Gonzales WROTE the Jan 2002 memo. Click the link and read it for yourself. The famous “torture memo” was written TO him, not BY him. The 2002 memo was regarding the Geneva Convention and whether or not it applied to al Qaeda and Taliban fighters, which Gonzales concluded it did not. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/84 "2005-02-26T18:00:57Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The famous “torture memo” was written TO him, not BY him. > > The 2002 memo was regarding the Geneva Convention and whether or not it applied to al Qaeda and Taliban fighters, which Gonzales concluded it did not. So this is a semantic quibble about which disgusting torture memo is actually called the “torture memo?” Do you actually believe that such a quibble has any significance to any greater point about Gonzales’ involvement in the process or the **Reeder’s** original point that Gonzales “sent out a memo saying torture was ok?” (and Gonzales’ (illegitimate) “conclusion” that the GC did not apply to aQ or Taliban prisoners was just that, an opinion that torture was ok. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/85 "2005-02-26T18:30:51Z")
**DtC** : I was not responding to **Reeder** , I was responding to you. You claimed Gonzales authored the memo. That’s why I wrote: “Authored?” The famous “torture memo”, which you yourself linked to, was not authored by Gonzales. That is a fact. As for the other memo, saying “the GC doesn’t apply to person X” is NOT equivalent to saying “it’s OK to torture person X”. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/86 "2005-02-26T18:46:15Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Ignoring the gun issue and speaking in general I don’t think we should look to any specific administration for an interpetation of the constitution espicially not this particular one. I seldom agree with you, but I certainly do now. This is an administration that is chopping up civil liberty like a pizza topping. At least the Democrats want only our money; these people want our blood. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/87 "2005-02-26T18:58:39Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I seldom agree with you, but I certainly do now. This is an administration that is chopping up civil liberty like a pizza topping. At least the Democrats want only our money; these people want our blood. Ha! Someone who is all about no interference from government, who advocates individual freedoms out the ying-yang, is upset because someone in charge interprets a law to apply to individuals? **Lib** , there are times when I don’t have any idea what your deal is. This is one of them. If anything this is extending[/iu] civil liberties, not restricting them for once. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/88 "2005-02-26T19:02:39Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > You must be reading the specially edited NRA version of the amendment. There’s a bit between the commas that you sort of left out. If the authors didn’t think that bit was significant, they wouldn’t have put it in there. Nope; my summation is simply an translation of the entire text from terms-of-art in 18th century English into colloquial 21st century English: “A well-regulated militia” – the adult\* population generally, with knowledge of and access to arms “being necessary for the security of a free State” – all nations need some sort of security mechanism; we need one that also works against government overreach to guarantee a future as a **free** nation “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” – Because of the foregoing, we find it necessary to provide an explicit guarantee of the RKBA. \*Modification from “adult male” to simply “adult” is, obviously, part of that 18th century to modern translation. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/89 "2005-02-26T19:06:12Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > Ha! Someone who is all about no interference from government, who advocates individual freedoms out the ying-yang, is upset because someone in charge interprets a law to apply to individuals? > > **Lib** , there are times when I don’t have any idea what your deal is. This is one of them. If anything this is extending[/iu] civil liberties, not restricting them for once. But why? Why are they doing this? If these had been five-year champions of freedom, I’d be doing the happy dance. But these rat bastards have made freedom into a dirty word — something it has authorized itself to shove down people’s throats. That makes me suspicious that they have some ulterior motive. I’m all for the people having rights, including the right to bear arms. But there is not one right that comes from these sons of bitches. They are not the authorized dispensers of rights. My rights came from God, not George. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/90 "2005-02-26T19:07:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But if we look around the world, we see a lot of “free countries” where the people do **not** have any constitutionally guaranteed right to keep or bear arms. (And in some of those countries, the government evinces significantly more respect for personal rights and liberties than the U.S. government does; and in practically all of them, the homicide rate is drastically lower.) It would appear that the authors of the Second Amendment were fundamentally mistaken on that point. Most of them, frankly, have too short a history (i.e. less than a century) as “free countries” to support any definitive conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/91 "2005-02-26T19:13:17Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Interesting. Maybe I’m wrong about the intent. > > The 2nd Amendment is something I’ve never been able to get a sure handle on. On the one hand I think the militia clause must have been put in there for a reason, on the other hand it doesn’t seem obvious that the right was not intended for individuals. The Master speaks. I find this analysis (that the limitation on the body of the Amendment permitted by the “militia clause” is just big enough to allow the government to disarm lawless armed troublemakers) convincing. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/92 "2005-02-26T20:17:58Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > **DtC** : I was not responding to **Reeder** , I was responding to you. You claimed Gonzales authored the memo. That’s why I wrote: “Authored?” The famous “torture memo”, which you yourself linked to, was not authored by Gonzales. That is a fact. There was more than one torture memo. Gonzales authored one of them and was heavily involved in the other. > [@](#): > > As for the other memo, saying “the GC doesn’t apply to person X” is NOT equivalent to saying “it’s OK to torture person X”. That’s exactly what it was saying. That was its exact context and that was its exact intent. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/93 "2005-02-26T20:41:13Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > …Gonzales authored one of them… Are you sure? I recall reading an analysis of this situation several months ago and the author (I’m going from memory) indicated that Gonzales had not authored any of the memos in question. Which particular memo are referring to? > [@](#): > > That’s exactly what it was saying. That was its exact context and that was its exact intent. I disagree. [The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950.](http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm) is a very lengthy document dealing with numerous aspects of this issue. One might just as easily argue that the thrust of that memo was to deal with any number of items in the GC document, for example the issue of military tribunals. What exactly is the “context” of that memo? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/94 "2005-02-26T20:47:18Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Are you sure? I recall reading an analysis of this situation several months ago and the author (I’m going from memory) indicated that Gonzales had not authored any of the memos in question. Which particular memo are referring to? The January 25, 2005 memorandum that I linked to. > [@](#): > > I disagree. [The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950.](http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm) is a very lengthy document dealing with numerous aspects of this issue. One might just as easily argue that the thrust of that memo was to deal with any number of items in the GC document, for example the issue of military tribunals. > > What exactly is the “context” of that memo? Interrogation, i.e. torture. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/95 "2005-02-26T21:31:08Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The January 25, 2005 memorandum that I linked to. > > Interrogation, i.e. torture. Just to be clear, the memo is dated 2002. I didn’t see the word “interrogation” in that memo, but it’s pretty hard to read, so maybe I missed it. Can you point me to the paticular sentence and paragraph where you see it? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/96 "2005-02-26T23:13:08Z")
As I think about it, even if “interogation” was the only purpose of the Jan 2002 memo, it still cannot be construed as sanctioning torture. The relavent part from the GC (see my link) is this, my emphasis: > [@](#): > > Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. > > \ > > No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. This clearly is meant to prevent either side from obaining strategic or tactical information from prisoners. This would seemingly rule out the type of questioning that police routinely use on suspects to gain info about crimes. Many people here, including you IIRC, have argued that the “war on terror” really needs to be a police action. I’m actually pretty much in that camp myself. But I sure as hell want al Qaeda operatives interogated (not tortured) for information. If they are POWs, we can’t do that. ---
**Author:** ![jebert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ec9cab/32.png) [@jebert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jebert)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/97 "2005-02-28T19:23:04Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > And as I said, barring a review by the Supreme Court this is the iunterpretation that will prevail. Since \*\*the SCOTUS has been unwilling to look at this \*\*for 60 years I’m fine with that. It is my understanding that a Court decision on this issue would be so final and consequential that neither side is willing to risk it. The Court doesn’t go out looking for interesting cases; someone has to actively bring the cases to the Court, which can then decide whether or not to hear them. The Supreme Court, in order to have shown evidence to be unwilling to look at the 2nd amendment issue, would have had to turn away cases specifically brought to it directed at the 2nd amendment. What specific cases have they turned away to demonstrate this 60-year unwillingness? IOW, cite? ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/98 "2005-02-28T20:42:07Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > (1) Are you attributing the result of this study to the administration? If so, do you have any evidence that it is politically motivated? Just to be clear on this point: the Department of Justice is very much part of the current administration, and anything they do is as politically motivated as any other partisan branch of government. The President doesn’t just appoint a new Attorney General upon taking office, he appoints a new Solicitor General, all the Deputy Attorneys General, all Directors, new U.S. Attorneys for every district in America, and so on, and those appointed and sworn in under the previous President are sent packing. The Department of Justice works for, and advocates the political positions of, whoever the current President happens to be. Without commenting on the merits of the brief, it’s wholly unsurprising that the Department of Justice would write a memo reaching this conclusion, because it’s the oft-stated position of the President himself. It’s not almost like attorneys working for the President and paid to advocate his position wrote the memo; that’s exactly what happened. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/99 "2005-02-28T21:24:52Z")
> [@jebert](#): > > What specific cases have they turned away to demonstrate this 60-year unwillingness? The Supreme Court has denied _certiorari_ in at least two recent cases presenting the individual/collective rights issue: the 5th Circuit’s _Emerson_ decision and the 9th Circuit’s _Silveira_ decision. The Court also denied cert. somewhat further back in the 4th Circuit’s _Love v. Pepersack_ case (1995) and the 6th Circuit’s _Warin_ case (1976). For a more-or-less complete listing of the relevant circuit court opinions, see my post (#5) in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=148475) ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868/100 "2005-02-28T22:02:26Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > The Supreme Court has denied _certiorari_ in at least two recent cases presenting the individual/collective rights issue: the 5th Circuit’s _Emerson_ decision and the 9th Circuit’s _Silveira_ decision. The Court also denied cert. somewhat further back in the 4th Circuit’s _Love v. Pepersack_ case (1995) and the 6th Circuit’s _Warin_ case (1976). For a more-or-less complete listing of the relevant circuit court opinions, see my post (#5) in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=148475) **Minty** or other knowledgeable person, is there any **informed** speculation on why they are consistently denying cert.? We know they’re not afraid to tackle tough cases; why are they not ruling on this issue? (We’ve had several pages here and in other threads on _uninformed opinion_; I’m asking if someone who has insight into their criteria for granting and denying cert. has ever written on the question of why they’re denying as regards this issue.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-department-of-justice-2nd-amendment-upholds-individual-not-collective-rights/291868.md?page=6)