Well, see- you are not a Constitutional law scholar. You may think you are discussing the fine points of Constitutional law but in reality you are not, since the Supreme Court- actual Constitutional law experts- have ruled you are wrong.
If you think the militia clause limits the rights of a individual to own a gun for self/home defense you are simply deluding yourself into thinking you know more Law that a Supreme Court Justice.
I mean even in Miller the Justices could have simply pointed out there Miller wasnt a member of a Militia, and thereby couldnt own any gun. But no where in Miller is Millers membership in a militia a question.
Mostly brought their own, some were issued.
As a quick aside, if I may, you lost a great opportunity here by not using “mentioned” instead of “a question”
And I dont see that argument much, if ever here.
That’s a straw man until and when someone here makes that point.
That was a response to a post that described someone making that exact point. Not as a response to anyone here.
The 1st amendment is a target as well.
Trying to keep this thread focused, though I’m not sure if I can provide actionable constraints.
This thread is about debate tactics, not the underlying arguments of those tactics. Of course, given the nature of this thread, gun-related issues provide context to the discussion, but please set aside discussion about any particular underlying argument.
For example, rehashing SCOTUS rulings is off topic, but discussing the nature of SCOTUS rulings as a tool in argument is not. Whether the 2nd amendment should be repealed is off topic, but discussing whether repeal of the 2nd amendment is a viable, valid, and/or effective tactic is not off topic. Whether someone would start an armed revolution after certain criteria are met is off topic, but discussing whether armed revolution is a viable tactic in negotiating a particular outcome is not.
It’s a fine line to walk, but I’m going to try.
[/moderating]
I don’t see that as a contradiction at all let alone ‘dishonest’.
Most people believe there is a natural right to free expression in some form. It doesn’t render all their detailed arguments about what the first amendment means in practice ‘dishonest’.
And the 9th Amendment itself explicitly introduces the concept of a ‘parallel track’ of rights not enumerated (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). There’s likewise no logical basis to say that rights which are enumerated would disappear if they had not been enumerated.
And it’s particularly discordant for the generally left leaning pro gun control side to talk about their ‘facts’ v other side’s ‘beliefs’ on guns when the same people mainly assert entirely non-enumerated right to redefine marriage from the traditional one man/one woman formula, or the right to abortion. Those are obviously beliefs. And there’s nothing wrong with beliefs. Many questions are matters of belief, and marriage definition, abortion, gun and speech rights are all examples.
But since the Constitution does mention speech and gun rights, it’s only natural and appropriate to debate what the relevant passages mean or should be held to mean. Which again you can’t do for rights which aren’t enumerated at all. That doesn’t somehow make marriage definition or abortion debates inherently more ‘honest’ than speech or gun rights debates.
The principal two ‘inherent problems in 2A discussions’ are IMO different than yours:
But it probably makes more sense IMO before focusing so much on 2A from pro-control POV to wait until there are actually major laws which could pass nationally but have been found unconstitutional under 2A. As it is there are loads of restrictive laws in various states and localities which have not been found unconstitutional but which can’t be enacted nationally for lack of votes, besides total lack of votes to pass them in various other states. That’s not directly about the 2A. And going the other way, which are the major gun laws passed nationally in the US then overturned based on the 2A? I don’t know of any. Or even the laws a reasonable person could say would pass Congress except House and Senate members are afraid the laws would be overturned based on 2A? I can’t think of any examples of that either.If somehow a constitutional amendment was passed that explicitly made abortion illegal, would pro-choice women shrug their shoulders and say “what can you do?”? Or would they scream that they didn’t care if all the men and 2/3 of the women of the USA supported the amendment, that reproductive freedom and control of their bodies was a fundamental right; the law, the Constitution, and anyone else’s opinion be damned?
American society is caught somewhere between libertarianism and Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan. On multiple issues you have people saying “what I do is none of your damn business”, and the others replying “oh yes it is”. Guns vs. gun control. Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life. Free Speech vs. banning Hate Speech. Property rights vs. Conservation. Free Enterprise vs. Social Welfare. And probably others, all about the same fundamental dilemma: where to draw the balance between the individual and society.
Are you talking about the right to own a gun or the right to procreate?
Still a straw man.
Come back when somebody posts it here. bring pie.
Since it started with the OP poisoning the well, this won’t end well.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what a “straw man” argument means?
And I’ll come back when someone posts the same argument, whether by a person on this board or someone off-board that a member of this board heard.
One can consider the ratification debates on 2A and the drafts that were written and revised before the final version:
Apparently, three things concerned framers:
Notice, then, that the claim that 2A had nothing to do with individual rights, militias, or regulated militias are contradicted by framers who debated on the statement as it was drafted several times to gain compromise.
There were other issues to consider, such as some framers remembering how the British tried to encourage slaves to rebel.
My sense, then, is that what should be a common law right to bear arms was made part of the Bill of Rights because some wanted assurance that the government (state or otherwise) could never act in the same way as the British, as they believed.
Others wanted state militias to be maintained because they did not trust the federal government, and they also needed to maintain internal control, such as dealing with slaves.
Still others wanted to make sure that the standing army remained small, and that meant using regulated militias to supplement it in times of war.
With Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts, two of the three goals of 2A gained fruition. With the Militia Acts, all able-bodied males of a certain age range (blacks were included in a subsequent Act) were forced to undergo military service regulated by the fed. gov’t (given Art. 1 Sec. 8).
The problem is that as time went by, increasing population and industrialization led to the need for law enforcement systems rather than state militias. Increasing modernization in military forces led to larger standing armies and more specialization. And increasing sophistication in small arms led to more need for regulation.
With that, the country eventually had police forces, the National Guard and conscription, and gun control that varied across states.
See the note in post #68. This post is debating the actual underlying issues, not the tactics themselves.
[/moderating]
I am astounded that anyone can read the text and think “militia” is a requirement and not just one reason.
I think this reading is incorrect, but I will not try to pre-empt those who disagree by labeling them as dishonest.
Second amendment rights have been eroded by courts- generally very liberal ones- allowing what should be obviously unconstitutional encroachments. A recent example is Peruta vs. San Diego County; the Ninth Circuit allowed to stand local and state laws in San Diego, California, one which which forbids open carry, and another forbidding concealed carry, with the result that arms may not be legally borne. This chipping away at a basic, enumerated right has been only slowed, not stopped, by Heller.
Do you really not see the parallel?
The bill of rights is not an exhaustive list of the human rights that Americans possess. In fact, the bill of rights says so itself in the 9th amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I believe self defense to be an obvious and inherent human right. Further, I believe that such a right implies access to weapons which are appropriate for personal defense, like those that police officers carry, for example, for self defense.
Additionally, lack of access to weapons that can be wielded without significant physical strength or fighting ability is discriminatory. Sure, as a reasonably young, able bodied man, I’ve at least got a fighting chance with my fists or a baseball bat. But am I going to tell a woman half my size that she should be able to fight off any attackers with her bear hands?
I also believe, sincerely, that it’s obvious that the second amendment specifically protects an individual right to own and bear arms. In fact, I think this is so obvious that arguments to the contrary are necessarily in bad faith. Trying to twist the idea that the second amendment is a power granted to the states is utterly wrong and utterly contrary to the way that rights, powers, “the people”, states, and related language is used in other parts of the constitution. The idea that the national guard, created over 100 years later, and ultimately under the ultimate command of the federal armed forces, fulfills this role, is ludicrous.
Now - you can sincerely believe that the second amendment means what it says, but it’s outdated - but then we have a constitutional process to handle such a thing, amendments. Deciding that a basic human right, and one specifically enshrined in the constitution, just isn’t relevant anymore and we can freely violate it is certainly against the spirit of the constitution, the letter of the constitution, and in general sets a dangerous precedent.
So I believe that the second amendment clearly and unambiguously protects the right to own and bear arms, but I also believe that, absent the second amendment, such a right, as part of the right of self defense, exists anyway. It’s nice that both end up arriving in the same place - it makes things much less legally ambiguous.
I would say that the OP is not only wrong, but the opposite of right - I’ve also participated in countless gun debates, and those who argue against the right to bear arms are usually arguing in bad faith. They attempt to distort the obvious truth of the intent of the founding fathers and what’s actually written in the constitution because they believe that guns are bad or that that part of the constitution is unsuitable or outdated in a modern society, but they knowingly distort the truth and argue in bad faith to try to justify that the constitution never meant that at all.
I’m not saying that those who argue for gun control generally argue in bad faith - I’m saying that specifically on the issue of whether or not the second amendment means what it obviously means they do.
I suppose that was supposed to be some variation of “not even right”, but it comes out as the equivalent of “Not only does 2+2=4, it also equals 3+1!”
I am sorry that you think that someone who has an opposing few of such matters is arguing in bad faith, because that certainly implies that those who do are being deliberately dishonest
In fact, it doesn’t just imply it-it says it plain and simple. It says that I know that what you believe to be true is actually true, and that I know that what I claim to believe is actually false.
If I am reading your response wrong, please correct me.