Are you illiterate? Have you somehow missed that I’ve been arguing for a page and a half that the Second Amendment is not about shooting criminals? It’s “about” the well-organized militia, as is plainly evidenced by the introductory clause. 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 BTW, that was your post I linked to, in case that wasn’t clear.
Sure I am. You apparently have never visited my web page.
(I’m also happy to inform you that you’re in the militia too. Check the U.S. Code.)
Who, prey tell, is “advocating shooting because they have no respect for democracy”?
No, it wasn’t clear. It linked to a post of you arguing w/ tedster.
Ah, so I’m the gun nut!
I’ll have to update my resume now…
Crafter, my man, you and your buddies ain’t in no goddamned “well-organized militia.” You like guns and you pretend you’re Delta Force warriors fighting commies or whatever. The only “organization” there is whatever you happen to think you ought to go. I sneer in the general direction of your little social club. North by northeast, I believe it is.
More to the point, I directly addressed the tired old “everyone’s in the militia” argument in the thread I linked to earlier. The discussion of that particular bit of silliness you’re relying on starts about 2/3 of the way down the page, where I quote and discuss 10 U.S.C. 311. It’s actually a very good thread (though contentious), and reading the whole thing might even learn you a thing or two.
For the moment, suffice it to say that your statement that “you’re in the militia too” applies, by the very language of the statute, to the unorganized militia. You may recall that troublesome bit of language at the front of the Second Amendment, referring to the well-organized militia? Sorry, you don’t qualify.
Oh, and it’s also fun to point out that the statute you rely on only applies to males between the ages of 17 and 45. Any of your gun-loving buddies women or over 45? Well tell 'em they ain’t in the militia. Fun, fun fun!
If you actually read it, the 2nd refers to “Well Regulated” not “Well Organized”; but that’s close.
In those days, “well regulated” might refer to a watch, or perhaps a flintlock mechanism, for example. What they mean is that it’s been oiled, adjusted, maintained and regulated to keep good time, or function properly – In other words, well trained, well equipped, and yes, organized.
Today, people automatically assume it means a host of red tape and legalese, restrictions, and oversight, and Control Not even close.
Dammit, that’s the second gun control thread in a row where I’ve had a brain fart and substituted “well-organized” for “well-regulated.” My apologies for the error.
Yes, but in this particular instance, they referred to a well-regulated militia, not a clock or other precision instrument. And if you look in the O.E.D., I believe you’ll find plenty of 18th century and earlier instances in which “regulated” means exactly the same as it does now: “To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.”
Crafter Man:
As far as the West End Grocery is concerned, if the Yoder Brothers or their kids still run the place you will be greeted with open arms. Back when West Liberty still had its own high school I spent the better part of my formative years there.
As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, I would be surprised if the Founders ever considered private ownership of firearms. What I do know is that the guys who drafted the Bill of Rights were concerned with was the events of their recent history and the grant in the Basic Document to the national government of the power to raise a national standing army. It was then an article of faith among republicans (small “R”) that a standing national army answerable to the president as commander in chief was a probable tool of tyranny. They had before them the example of the English Civil War and the Protectorate during which parliament had been dissolved and the country was run by Oliver Cromwell and the standing army (the administration of the lieutenant-generals.) They also knew that when Britain decided to close down agitation for home rule in the American colonies, the first thing that happened was to garrison Boston and to disarm the Mass. militia. These were things that the Drafters of the Bill of Rights wanted to make sure were not going to happen with an over mighty federal government. Their answer was the “military amendments” included in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment guarantees the existence of the militia as a counter balance to the standing army. The Third Amendment prohibits billeting troops on the civilian population. These amendments were seen as a counter balance to the abuses seen as accompanying a standing army and gave the new nation an armed force that could be called on in time of crises thus eliminating the need for a large and expensive and dangerous standing army.
You have to observe the first rule of statutory interpretation when dealing with the Constitution. The first rule is: read the whole thing. The militia language is there for a reason. While you may claim an inviolable, and even God given, right to possession of private firearms you cannot look to the Second Amendment( as it is written and as it has been read by the only institution authorized to give a definitive interpretation of it) as the source of that right.
The difference between constitutionally sanctioned “rights” and those that do not have their source in the Constitution is that a Constitutional right may be lawfully infringed or restricted only on a showing of a “compelling government interest” and that the proposed restriction is tailored so as to impose the minimum necessary restriction. In order it restrict other “rights” the government need only show a rational relationship between the restriction and an end which the government may achieve through the exercise of its police power. Thus, if your ownership of a gun is a constitutional right the national government’s power to restrict your ownership is greatly inhibited, but if that right is not a Constitutional right its restriction is a matter of a rational connection and political will.
Obviously they were referring to the militia in this particular instance, no-one is arguing otherwise. I suppose the sky just isn’t blue enough for some people, sheesh.
“Well Regulated” meant that they were well trained, well equipped, on time, dependable, functional, etc. etc.
Certainly not ‘Completely inundated by 20,000 conflicting gun laws and regulations’ and de facto disarmament of law abiding citizens, “Gun Free” zones (We all know how well those work) etc.
Actually, the 2nd Amendment actually starts to make sense if you look at “Regulated” in the definition at the time it was written, not how we view the word today. A well regulated militia would be analogous to a finely tuned engine, all of its components are in harmony and proper operation. “F Troop” otoh, would be an example of a poorly regulated organization. Clearly, has nothing to with beauracratic oversight and red tape.
Apparently they felt that centralized storage of firearms was a Bad Idea, and each citizen a potential soldier who could be called up at a moments notice. Time is always of the essence, so keeping arms at home makes sense. Still does, example: Switzerland. Can you really argue with a straight face that 18th century legislators thought that individual citizens be prohibited from owning any firearms whatsoever?
I’d like to point out that the issue of what exactly the 2nd amendment means, while interesting, isn’t really relevant to the issue raised by the OP. The government is completely free to take as restrictive view of its powers that it likes. If Ashcroft declares that, based on his interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, he will no longer serve search warrants on Tuesdays or Thursdays, a legal analysis showing that the government is free to serve search warrants on all days of the week would not compel him to change his policy.
Tedster, Crafter_man has already made that exact point. I’ve already responded that “regulate” meant the exact same thing then as it does now: “To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.”
No. Words change meaning over the years, obviously, and in this instance, the 2nd only makes sense when understood in this way.
Rhetorical gymnastics aside, it is clear they meant what they said and said what they meant. Rather than try to squeeze more jizm out of a philosophically masturbatory exercise in deconstructing the 2nd Amendment, why don’t people just amend the damn constitution, as Cecil himself points out?
The Ryan may have made a stab at getting this back on point, as if THAT ever made much difference around here.
What has happened however is not analogous to the Justice Department deciding that it will not serve warrants one or two days a week. 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. 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.
Well, this has been fascinating, although I have to say Minty that your tolerance for fools seems to be slipping.
Anyway, getting back to the OP. I have a question.
Isn’t it the responsiblity of the AG (and particularly of the Solicitor General) to stand up in front of the courts and argue that whatever laws Congress happens to pass are correct and allowed by the Constitution? Do Ashcroft and Olsen really have the right (as they seem to be claiming) of refusing to defend or an enforce a law that they personally belive is wrong.
Didn’t Ashcroft specifically promise in his confirmation hearing that he would defend all if the laws and not just the ones he approved of?
This looks to me like nothing short of malpractice.
tj
No
Not all laws are Constitutional.
BTW, since someone mentioned the “organized” and “unorganized” militia.
Did’nt the Fedgov first make a distinction when they decided to organize a Federal Army? Since prior to that, the definition of a militia was of individual bringing arms to defend his State, when the FedGov decided to form a Federal Army, didn’t they actually create the term "organized"militia, in order to seperate it from the already existing “unorganized” militia?
Tejota, the Justice department is seperate from Congress. It is under no obligation to defend laws which Congress passes, whether those laws are Constitutional or not.
Personally, I believe any Senator or Congressman who votes yes on an unConstitutional law should be strung up from the nearest lightpost.
Minty:
Ever watch The Flintstones? How does the theme song end?
“You’ll have a gay old time.”
Are they implying you’ll have a homosexual feelings while watching the show?!?!
Of course not. Back then, “gay” meant “happy” and “carefree.”
Lesson learned: You cannot use modern definitions when trying to interpret historical language. Repeat: Cannot. Cannot. Cannot. Cannot. Cannot use modern definitions when trying to interpret historical language.
Did you know that constitutional attorneys keep an 1824 copy of Webster’s Dictionary next to their desk? Do you want to know why? See above.
Because words aren’t just words; words mean things. And regulated in 1791 does not mean the same thing as it does today.
Now those of us who have more than half a brain cell know that “regulated’ meant “well trained” and “well disciplined” in 1791. (You appear to be in the minority.) But you wanna know something? When it comes right down to it, I really don’t care what the Bill of Rights says. When we squabble over the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, or any amendment for that matter, we’re implying that we get our rights from the Bill of Rights. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I don’t give a shit what that damn document says. (Remember, that document is really a directive for the government, not us.) It could say the moon is made of green cheese for all I care. I don’t derive my rights from that document. My rights come from my creator, and no one - you, the president, the DoJ, the Founding Fathers, Janet Reno, Janet Jackson, Ted Kennedy, Ted Kaczynski, Congress, the Supreme Court, Night Court – anyone – is allowed to say anything about these rights.
They’re my rights.
Keep your slimy hands off of them.
Spoken like a true Buckeye.
Spider what a profound grasp of the obvious you have. :rolleyes:
Of course not all laws are constitutional. But in deciding that a law is not constitutional, someone has to get up in front of the SCOTUS and argue that it is, and someone else has to argue that it is not.
Who will argue for the law except for the goverment? And who specifically except for the Solicitor General? Where does it say he has the right to refuse to defend laws he doesn’t agree with?
If a designated advocate for a particular legal position refuses to advocate that position, that is malpractice. Same as if a public defender refused to defend his client.
If Ashcroft didn’t want to defend the laws the congress passes, then he shouldn’t have become the Attorney General.
I have no confidence that you understand the difference between the role of the Justice Department and a fart. I was hoping for an informed opinion, although it appears that the knowlegable people have better things to do this evening. <sigh>
I suppose “I really don’t care” is an appropriate contribution to a Pit Thread. It took him an awful long time to get there. For God sake don’t go into Champaign County suggesting that the rules apply to Crafter Man. He’s likely to denounce you as a slimy handed Marxist.
It only makes sense the way you understand it? It seems so trite to use this in a Pit thread, but the only thing I can think of to say in response to that bit of silliness is: :rolleyes:
Naturally. The question, of course, if what did they mean when they wrote it? You say one thing, I say another, and the courts say something else altogether. I know who wins that particular argument.
Okey doke. But since the Second Amendment currently–again, as interpreted by the institutions charged with interpreting it–supports my position a lot better than yours, I’m afraid you’re the one who will have to do the amending.
Crafter_Man, get out the fucking Oxford English Dictionary and look up the goddamned word and its history of usage. Your name is not Merriam Webster.
Or better yet, pucker up your lips and kiss my winterfresh ass as I conclusively demonstrate that you are a moron and that “regulate” meant the same when the Constitution was written as it does today: "“To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.” You got that? Read it twice, just to be sure, because now we’re going to use it in a sentence.
That’s Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, and there is no fucking way on the planet that the people who wrote the Constitution could have meant Congress had the power to make interstate commerce “well trained” or issue money that was “well disciplined.”
You, Crafter_Man, are the ignorantest ignoramus in the entire state of Ignorania. Try to remember not to look up at the sky for too long the next time it rains.