Bullshit. Any dumbass can read the amendment, and read any of the Founders quotations, and figure out that it’s an individual right.
Looking back at this, there’s nothing wrong with the original assertion.
I merely claim that our founders, the framers of our constitution, felt arms to be never denied law abiding citizens. Everyone knows damn well if somehow Jefferson, Adams, Paine, et al. were to somehow miraculously re-appear today there’s no way in hell they would sign on to gun confiscation, not a fucking chance.
If we as a nation are going to follow the constitution, lets do that. Or, amend the constitution to prohibit firearms, simple as that. Looking at how well illegal drugs are kept out of our country, though I wouldn’t take much stock in that idea.
For the record, I don’t care what position the Justice Department takes on individual vs. collective rights. It’s politics. Such things happen. And if the Supreme Court rules tomorrow that the Second Amendment confers an individual right, it’s no skin off my nose. Hell, I think they’d be right to do so. But goddamn, people, if you’re going to argue the law, at least have some decent idea of what the law actually is.
So, Tedster, do you finally concede there is no evidence “the framers of the constitution wanted the people, citizens, individuals, etc… to be able to keep and bear arms for protection against thieves, murderers and other assorted riff-raff,” i.e., that they were motivated by the desire to ensure self-defense against same? Remember, ensuring a right broad enough to encompass something by no means indicates that the motivation was to ensure that something.
Oh, and Barking Spider, it’s very nice that you think “any dumbass” can figure out that it’s an individual right. But are you a 5-justice majority on the Supreme Court? Any two justices on a panel of the court of appeals for the federal circuit where you live? Even a justice of the peace? No? Then I’m afraid you’re just going to have to console yourself with the that personal opinion, because it ain’t the way the world works.
This is an fascinating point, but contrary to what I’ve always believed. Minty (and everyone else interested), would you mind discussing it further over here?
My only request is leave the Gun-Control stuff behind. I don’t know about you, but I’m sick of gun-control threads and we really don’t need another one.
Thanks!
Fenris
I’ll concede you are misinterpreting what I said/meant. If you are going to quote me, quote the whole thing…
I don’t give a shit what the courts think, rule, or say.
I don’t give a shit what the DoJ thinks, either.
Listen here, bub: I have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. Period. I don’t care what you think, I don’t care what the government thinks, and I don’t care what Janet Reno thinks. (Hell, I don’t even care what our Founding Fathers thought for that matter, though all evidence suggests they did believe it’s an individual right.)
I think I can speak for others patriots when I say keep your slimy, Marxist hands off my rights. Or there’ll be trouble.
So why doesn’t this also apply to people YOU agree with?
Hmmm… And how would you define a “gun nut,” minty?
It does.
:sigh:
In short, you claimed the framers were motivated by both (1) the desire to enable people to defend themselves against criminals and (2) the desire to enable people to defend themselves against government tyrrany and foreign invasion.
(2) Is correct. (1) is incorrect. I fail to understand why you continue to deny that (1) is incorrect, when you have not been able to put forth even a shred of evidence establishing such a motive.
With a dictionary. 
“gun” + “a foolish, eccentric, or crazy person” =“gun nut”
OK, we’re clearly off on a tangent here. We have just heard from the wilds of Champaign County with the standard declaration that all governmental action that doesn’t conform precisely to my own personal vision of what government ought to have done is the product of the Great Communist Conspiracy (trademark). What our friend from St. Paris is advocating is not patriotism (love of country) but anarchy (love of self). If you read enough editorials in Guns and Ammo, Soldier of Fortune, and Wild West Adventures you start to think this way.
If you pass through West Liberty, Crafter, stop at the West End Grocery and tell them that Ott says hello.
Let me preface by saying: I don’t like guns. I don’t like gun nuts. I don’t like the NRA. I despise John Ashcroft, and think he’ll go down in history as one of our worst Attorneys General.
However… I love the Bill of Rights and don’t want to see anything chip away at it. Actually, I think the Bill of Rights means a lot more to me than it does to our wacko religious AG or half-wit President.
If there’s any doubt about whether a right is considered individual or collective – as clearly there is in this case – I’d prefer to err on the side of individual rights. So I’ll agree with an individual right to bear arms; that still leaves room for regulation and limitations, as with many individual rights. Gun deaths are a national tragedy, but I’m not willing to give up a basic right (even one I don’t use myself) because other people criminally abuse it.
(To be completely honest, I do own weapons, they’re just all hand-to-hand.)
Well, we don’t have a 3 day waiting period or background check to buy a typewriter, nor does a libel or slander conviction result in our loss of free speech. Simply put, if we have to ask permission to exercise a right, then it is no longer a right.
Other aspects are kind of funny in a bizarre way. Lots of people hold the 1st Amendment almost as some sort of deity, but fall strangely silent when it comes to the 2nd. The ACLU isn’t known for its rabid defense of 2nd Amendment rights, for example, which is why I find them rather suspect.
Here is Cecil, The Master himself, writing on the 2nd: (He agrees with me, not surprisingly)
"However odd it strikes us today, the framers regarded private gun ownership as one of the pillars of their (our) liberty. They had recently defeated one of the most powerful nations in the world using an army that in the early going had consisted of amateur soldiers using their own weapons. They considered these citizen militias vastly preferable to standing armies, which in their experience had been instruments of oppression. They also had no professional police force upon which to depend for defense of their lives and property. It seemed natural to them that ordinary folk should have the right to own guns.
No one doubts today that slavery is bad, but the constitution as written permitted it, and a duly ratified amendment was required to put the matter right. *Likewise we should concede that the Second Amendment means what it seems to mean and that if we want to control guns to the point of prohibition, amending the amendment is the honest thing to do. * (italics mine)
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_123.html
–CECIL ADAMS
Put that in your sack too while you’re at it.
So let me get this straight, SG: If I believe I have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms, then I’m an anarchist? Because if you’ll take the time to reread my post, you’ll find that that’s all I’m saying…
But will I get kicked in the nuts if I mention your name?
I assume then you’ve encountered “gun nuts” during your web searches. Could you kindly provide a link to someone you consider a “gun nut?”
Here’s one who seems awfully hostile and endorses killing people when democracy doesn’t work out the way he would like it to.
Oh, I see. So tedster’s a “gun nut.” :rolleyes:
It is also apparent you believe the 2nd Amendment is about duck hunting and shooting buglers. Would that be correct?