# The Right to Bear Arms, Yet again **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 8, 2002, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930 "2002-05-08T17:33:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Tedster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@Tedster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tedster)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2002, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930/121 "2002-05-11T04:26:51Z")
Well, logically as the 2nd sez “the right to keep and bear arms” (it’s in there, like Italian Spices, really) implies that the right _already exists_ and then they go on to say “don’t mess with it.” ---
**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:** [May 11, 2002, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930/122 "2002-05-11T04:38:44Z")
Well that proves the existence of Natural Law, and **Tedster** is its Prophet. Will you be dropping by to let us in on any other secrets of the universe, or is the Divine Right of Guns pretty much it? ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2002, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930/123 "2002-05-11T04:45:49Z")
Minty, leave him alone. There isn’t much you can do about the willfully ignorant. (Although I think he’s right about well regulated at least including ideas of well trained and disciplined) ---
**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:** [May 11, 2002, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930/124 "2002-05-11T04:49:38Z")
Leave him alone? But they get mean when they’re wounded! ---
**Author:** ![Tedster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@Tedster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tedster)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2002, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930/125 "2002-05-11T05:57:42Z")
Okay, Minty… I suppose next you’re going to argue that “The right of the people… to be secure against unreasonable search and seizures” and “The right of the people to peaceably assemble…” refers to states rights, not individuals? At any rate, why are you so afraid of freedom, anyway? Are Police and the Military the only ones allowed firearms in your fresh minty green Utopia? How about the reality… there are hundreds of millions of firearms in the U.S., in case you hadn’t noticed. Gun laws only restrict lawful folk, by definition. Oops. Anyway, Cecil believes in the RKBA. That settles it. You’re the weakest link, Minty. Goodbye. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2002, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930/126 "2002-05-11T06:01:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spavined Gelding \* > What has happened however is not analogous to the Justice Department deciding that it will not serve warrants one or two days a week. Why not? > [@](#): > > What I see is closer to having the Justice Department, as a reward for loyal political support by the Mormon Church, decide that forced prayer in public schools is OK as long as it conforms to the precepts of the Mormon Church. The Constitution states that establishing a church is not allowed. There is nothing in it that says that the government **must** regulate guns. Even if you establish that the Constitution doesn’t say we can’t regulate guns, it’s a huge leap to go from that to saying that we must regulate guns. > [@](#): > > It is a clear reversal in the Department’s long standing position on a matter of law, induced plainly and simply by political and electorial considerations. Seeing as how beliefs about the 2nd amendments are political, **all** decisions on the 2nd amendment are political. ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2002, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930/127 "2002-05-11T08:05:43Z")
Well, after reading this entire vowel movement of **Minty’s** legalese circumlocutions, suffice to say that, since Ashcroft and the DOJ wield far more power than some anonymous internet asshole lawyer (but I repeat myself) I’m quite content in knowing that the **2nd Amendment** may now, finally, be interprerted _correctly_ for a change. A highly refreshing thought, and any opinionated wintergreen verbiage either with, for, against or impartial to that new DOJ finding, is wholly, completely and entirely irrelevant. Besides, I’ve always wanted to go shoot a **bugler** … Or perhaps a trombonist. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2002, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930/128 "2002-05-11T10:29:54Z")
I notice that Minty is still playing his old tricks, namely: Spouting off some random court cases, without explaining how they are relevant, and refusing to debate someone unless they are equally versed in those cases, and, seriously misrepresenting the opposition (the worst offense). Obviously, Minty cannot argue a point unless he believes those who disagree with him to be the spawn of Satan. So, hey, Minty, since you’re such an expert on the subject… on what do you base this silly, silly notion of yours that I believe myself to be some member of a “Delta Force”? That’s like claiming car owners all believe themselves to be members of NASCAR. ---
**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:** [May 11, 2002, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930/129 "2002-05-11T13:55:28Z")
I’m sorry, SPOOFE, I didn’t know you were playing pretend soldier in the woods like Crafter\_Man and his buddies are (check out his web page, as he suggested). I thought you were just of the type who thought everybody–'cept of course women and old folk–were already in the militia? And if you are confused by the case law I cite, feel free to ask for explanation. In case it wasn’t clear, all those U.S. Court of Appeals cases I cited on page 1 held that the Second Amendment confers no individual right to bear arms. Here, for ease of reference to the law you live under in California, is the [Hickman v. Block](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/9th/9455836.html) the Ninth Circuit case I cited above: > [@](#): > > The question presented at the threshold of Hickman’s appeal is whether the Second Amendment confers upon individual citizens standing to enforce the right to keep and bear arms. We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen. Clear now? Personally, I think they’re incorrect in that assessment, but hey sometimes the law just doesn’t work out the way we’d like it to. Tedster, you know perfectly well that the First and Fourth Amendments have been universally held to protect invdividual rights. My primary point in this thread–get it through your head here, please–is what the law _is_, not what you or I _think_ it is. As it stands right now, you have no individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Deal with it. Doc Nickel, you’re certainly welcome to be happy with the DOJ’s new position. As I’ve already stated, I really don’t care what position they take in this matter. ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2002, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930/130 "2002-05-11T15:56:20Z")
Just occurred to me… if Ashcroft’s dick has suddenly gotten so hard for the Bill of Rights, I wish he’d read the Fourth and Fifth Amendments as well as the Second. And the Fourteenth. Hell, read the whole document, you Bible-thumping twit. Lot of good stuff in there; separation of powers and all that. God, I hate that prick. ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2002, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930/131 "2002-05-11T17:42:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **As it stands right now, you have no individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Deal with it.** -If that’s the case, why am I currently bearing them? ---
**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:** [May 11, 2002, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930/132 "2002-05-11T19:06:17Z")
The Constitution also does not protect your right to go fly a kite. Nevertheless, you certainly may do so. ---
**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:** [May 11, 2002, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930/133 "2002-05-11T19:11:39Z")
Not that there is any such thing as a “right” to fly a kite, of course. Nevertheless, the point is that there are zillions of things you may lawfully do without any implication that those things are protected as rights under the U.S. Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2002, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930/134 "2002-05-12T01:05:51Z")
[Horshak]Oooh, oooh, Mr. Kotta, "ignorantest ignoramus "… band name…[/Horshak] ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2002, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930/135 "2002-05-12T02:24:34Z")
I have reviewed this thread, I have looked at Crafter Man’s web site, I have done a quick review of the annotations under the Second Amendment in the U.S.C.A. I am aghast. Occasionally commercial TV runs a spot about how ignorant and uninformed American Youth is because, for instance, more than half the kids in a mall in California don’t know that the US and the USSR were allies in WWII. However, I have seen a level of ignorance, and willful ignorance at that, in the responses to this thread that make me fear for the future of the Republic. How can anyone grow to adulthood in this country and not know the interpretation the courts have given to a provision of the bill of rights that has repeatedly been in the news for the past twenty years? Even the most rabid, foaming at the mouth Right-to Lifer knows where the idea of a Constitutional sanction for abortion comes from, but the Cold-Dead-Hands types have no idea of what the courts have done with the claim of a Constitutional sanction for private ownership of firearms. You may argue all you want that there should be a different reading of the Amendment, but you have to acknowledge that the Individual Right theory is not the law. That leaves you in the position of kicking your little feet and screaming that your God given right to own a really big gun, no questions asked, is being infringed by an oppressive government. Oh, well, I suppose it is time to climb in my black helicopter and go out to put secret marks on road signs to guide the impending Canadian invasion. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2002, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930/136 "2002-05-12T06:38:27Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m sorry, SPOOFE, I didn’t know you were playing pretend soldier in the woods like Crafter\_Man and his buddies are (check out his web page, as he suggested). I wasn’t referring to Crafter\_Man, his buddies, or anything of the sort. Your derision for those who hold to the “individual rights” argument of the 2nd Amendment has been, in my opinion, quite clear in this thread, with statements such as “But you ain’t in no well-organized militia, and you don’t get to start shooting just because you have no respect for democracy” and “You like guns and you pretend you’re Delta Force warriors fighting commies or whatever.” With regards to that last comment… overreact much? Delta Force? Where the hell do you get off misrepresenting your opposition like that? > [@](#): > > I thought you were just of the type who thought everybody–'cept of course women and old folk–were already in the militia? Pardon me whilst I roll my eyes. I believe I’ve made my opinions about the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership quite clear in the past, and they go FAR beyond what you just described. And you know it. So stop playing your childish little games and start debating honestly for once in your life. > [@](#): > > And if you are confused by the case law I cite, feel free to ask for explanation. The case laws that you cited aren’t what I take issue with. What I take issue with is your attitude of sneering at people who don’t know as much about it as you do. > [@](#): > > As it stands right now, you have no individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Deal with it. We are, by attempting to legally have what we consider to be an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution corrected. Are you suggesting that we should just roll over on our backs and allow Big Papa Gummint to tread all over us? Would you say the same thing if courts ruled that there is no individual right to free speech? No offense, Minty, but I doubt that you would. ---
**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:** [May 12, 2002, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930/137 "2002-05-12T14:42:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > I wasn’t referring to Crafter\_Man, his buddies, or anything of the sort. Your derision for those who hold to the “individual rights” argument of the 2nd Amendment has been, in my opinion, quite clear in this thread, My derision is reserved solely for those people who insist that the individual rights approach _is_ the law. It is not, and insisting otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is about as intellectually honest as insisting that there is no right to abortion or that there is a right to fly a kite. And if someone’s going to come into a thread _about_ the legal meaning of the Second Amendment and start spouting off how it _does_ confer an individual right without even acknowledging that the law says completely the opposite . . . well, then, that person is willfully ignorant and deserves a heaping pile of derision. > [@](#): > > with statements such as “But you ain’t in no well-organized militia, and you don’t get to start shooting just because you have no respect for democracy” and “You like guns and you pretend you’re Delta Force warriors fighting commies or whatever.” With regards to that last comment… overreact much? Delta Force? Where the hell do you get off misrepresenting your opposition like that? Piss off. Those comments were directed to Crafter\_Man, who had (1) already strongly implied acts of violence against those who would dare to enforce any democratically-enacted law that he happened to disagree strongly enough with, and (2) had aleady directed the whole world to his “unorganized militia” web site, which made it quite plain that he and his buddies _are_ wandering around the woods of Ohio pretending to be soldiers fighting commies. If those two statements don’t apply to you, then no offense should be taken. If they do apply to you, seek psychiatric help. > [@](#): > > Pardon me whilst I roll my eyes. I believe I’ve made my opinions about the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership quite clear in the past, and they go FAR beyond what you just described. I was referring solely to the “we’re all in the militia” argument. By the language of that federal statute, we are not. Well, you and I allegedly are in the unorganized militia, but my father, mother, and fiancee are not. The point is that if your response to the argument that one must be in the militia to have a right to bear arms is to claim that everyone is in the militia–it just ain’t true. > [@](#): > > The case laws that you cited aren’t what I take issue with. Then perhaps you ought not to say things like “I notice that Minty is still playing his old tricks, namely: Spouting off some random court cases, without explaining how they are relevant,” hmm? > [@](#): > > What I take issue with is your attitude of sneering at people who don’t know as much about it as you do. I’m happy to be an educational resource. Sneering only gets involved when they’ve been presented with the facts and continue to deny what the state of the law is. That’s willful ignorance, and it is contemptible no matter where or in what context it is found. > [@](#): > > We are, by attempting to legally have what we consider to be an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution corrected. Fine by me. Like I’ve said several times now, I don’t care what position DOJ takes, and the political process is precisely where this issue should be decided anyway. It’s just that folks like Crafter\_Man are out there threating to start shooting if the results of that democratic action aren’t to their liking. How very civilized of them, huh? > [@](#): > > Are you suggesting that we should just roll over on our backs and allow Big Papa Gummint to tread all over us? Would you say the same thing if courts ruled that there is no individual right to free speech? No offense, Minty, but I doubt that you would. Actually if the Supreme Court decided there was no individual right to free speech–or, somewhat more realistically, agreed with Judge Bork’s old position that it only applies to political and economic speech–I would be pissed as hell and doing everything imaginable to get the justices impeached. But–get this–I would still be out there explaining what the state of the law is, and heaping scorn on those who put their fingers in their ears and denied reality. Reality is that the Second Amendment is not an individual right. Maybe it will be one day, but right now the federal constitution only covers a collective right to bear arms that belongs to the states. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2002, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930/138 "2002-05-12T18:22:47Z")
I finally figured out where you’re coming from **minty**. You believe the existence of your rights - and the associated definitions & limitations thereof - are determined by _court decisions_. This is where you and I fundamentally disagree. I believe the existence of my rights, which include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to keep & bear arms, have _ **absolutely nothing to do with court decisions** _. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Because of this, _I honestly don’t give a rat’s ass what any court says_ with regard to my rights. This is why I never get in (seemingly endless) arguments about US vs. Emerson, US vs. Miller, et al. I don’t care what the “rulings” are, _even_ if they’re pro-2nd Amendment. So go ahead – spout off about the countless other court decisions. If you think _your_ rights are defined by those people, _knock yourself out_. As for the following comments: > [@](#): > > “Crafter\_Man has already strongly implied acts of violence against those who would dare to enforce any democratically-enacted law that he happened to disagree strongly enough with, and has aleady (sic) directed the whole world to his “unorganized militia” web site, which made it quite plain that he and his buddies are wandering around the woods of Ohio pretending to be soldiers fighting commies… folks like Crafter\_Man are out there threating (sic) to start shooting if the results of that democratic action aren’t to their liking.” I needed a good Sunday morning laugh! ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2002, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930/139 "2002-05-12T20:54:07Z")
I feel I should note that most of the cases **minty green** cited are misreadings of _Miller_, piled one on top of another (the later cases cite and continue the flawed reasoning of the earlier cases). Y’all go ahead and continue. ---
**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:** [May 12, 2002, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930/140 "2002-05-12T23:17:58Z")
So if the law is irrelevant to you, why are you so intent on proving it means something that supports your postion, Crafter? And Max, _Miller_ certainly does not stand for the proposition that the Second Amendment is a collective right instead of an individual one. However, _Miller_ indisputably establishes that the “well-regulated militia” clause acts as a substantive restriction on the scope of the right granted. Though the subsequent cases go beyond _Miller_’s holding that a gun has to be of a type suitable for militia use to receive any Second Amendment protection, they certainly draw on _Miller_’s recognition that the militia clause limits the right to bear arms. Nothing in the subsequent decisions contradicts anything in _Miller_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-yet-again/107930.md?page=8)