Razorsharp, (responding to MGibson, responding to SuaSponte:
The “she” you are presumably refering to is, in my estimation (based upon my having met him face-to-face twice), a he. While I haven’t actually verified physiological and anatomical details, I think, all things being equal (the odd transsexual and/or transvestite notwithstanding), that I can differentiate betwixt the genders.
As far as your little legalistic/constitutional/philosophical fracas with KellyM is concerned: oddly enough, you’re both right to some degree. You are right in an abstract, philosophically ideal sense; she (and I’m assumming Kelly M is a she based soley upon username) is right in a more concrete, practically applied manner.
Since it is difficult to get two people to agree upon the color of the sky, her point is probably more valid for real-world applications, even though I realize my cherished 2nd Ad. individual right may soon disappear to nothing more than mistaken public hysteria and the odd court-ruling or two.
Bricker: good posts. And an interesting side note for Elvis (and Minty Green, too, if he’s lurking): the 9th Circuit recently cited Emerson, specifically noting the dicta nature of it’s pro-individual right argument even while addressing it’s academic and legal merits in a salutory fashion.
Uncle Cecil’s citing of Sanford Levinson’s The Embarrassing Second Amendment is the tip of the iceberg of pro-individual right legal and historical scholarship to emerge in the last decade or two.
The only collective right scholarship to emerge, to my knowledge, is from Sarah Brady’s paid hacks (sorry, Sua; you get tarred with the same broad stroke) and liberal-lefty “scholars” who had made up their minds beforehand and manipulated “facts” to fit their arguments to arrive at a foregone conclusion. Bellesiles is merely the most egregious example of that lot, and he’s paid (and will continue to pay) the price for his scholastic legerdemain.
Elvis: :sigh: Miller never found for a collective right; they merely ruled that a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches was not, at that time, within their “official” knowledge, the sort of firearm in regular use by the military. They went into a fairly brief exploration of the arms “historically” borne by militias, and simply ruled that for a peson to have a right to keep and bear, the arm needed to bear some resemblance to those borne by, and in regular use with, armed forces.
Miller carries more weight as an argument for laws banning “Saturday Night Specials” and simple double-barreled shotguns today than against large-caliber revolvers, semi-auto handguns, pump-action and semi-auto shotguns and rifles.
Had Frank Miller’s lawyer been present at the hearing of U.S. v. Miller, and simple argument that sawed-off shotguns bore some semblance to regular military equipment, or even that it had some practical military usefullness, then the decision in Miller might have looked quite different than it does today.
A paraphrasing of the traditional definition of a militia would be along the lines of “All able-bodied males capable of bearing arms in defense of their nation.” I would submit that, in our modern times, a more broad definition might be “All able-bodied citizens capable of bearing arms in defense of their nation.”
Hence, the people, being, by definition, the militia, have the right to keep and bear arms. And since the singular of people is person, a word synonymous with “individual,” that right is an individual one.
Go hunting with your arms; defend you home, your family, your community with your arms. And when Uncle [Sam] calls, show up to muster with your individually owned and carried arms.
In closing:
Razorsharp: I agree with Little Nemo (and I’m basically on your side, even though your reasoning is faulty); inalienable means “unable to be taken away.” His knife analogy is a decent example. FWIW, neither the Constitution or its amendments guarantee any right to be inalienable; the very provision outlining the process to amend the Constitution puts paid to that fallacy. The term inalienable is, I believe, mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, which was basically a statement of reason and intent for the War of American Independence; it is not, in any way I know of, law of the land.
While being a firm believer in the modified right to keep and bear, I wish Sarah Brady and her ilk had the guts to simply push for a Constitutional amendment rather than trying all of their trickery, deception and dishonesty. Legislation Through Litigation is a very dangerous road to walk down, and the Law of Unintended Consequences is waiting to bite them and all of their followers on the ass.
minty said he should be able to make it and he mentioned last time we got together that he’d gladly buy you a drink sometime. He bought the first round last time we went to a midnight movie(Dr. Strangelove). We’re looking at dinner somewhere and drinks at the Inwood Lounge before the movie. Last time we went there Aglarond proclaimed the bartender “a GOD!” so I’m guessing the drinks were good.