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.”
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?
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)
Leave him alone? But they get mean when they’re wounded!
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.
Why not?
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.
Seeing as how beliefs about the 2nd amendments are political, all decisions on the 2nd amendment are political.
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.
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.
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 the Ninth Circuit case I cited above:
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.
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.
-If that’s the case, why am I currently bearing them?
The Constitution also does not protect your right to go fly a kite. Nevertheless, you certainly may do so.
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.
[Horshak]Oooh, oooh, Mr. Kotta, "ignorantest ignoramus "… band name…[/Horshak]
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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:
I needed a good Sunday morning laugh!
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.
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.