I have to pipe in again, and say that I agree with your words here, blowero, but not your conclusion. In looking through the history did you find many cites which refered to the militia as the modern concept of a standing army? It seems to me that a careful reading of history might give credence to the argument that the militia, while not a direct drop in replacement for “the people”, was not meant as a restricted state institution either.
Sure. From the NRA website:
That’s undoubtedly what you were trying to get at; you just articulated it very poorly.
Yes, BF did a good job discrediting that source, and you did a good job…uh, what was it you did? Oh, yeah - you repeated what BF said, except you acted like you came up with it. I guess I can congratulate you on being able to mimic other people’s posts really well.
Of course, you still haven’t provided any evidence that the citizens of the colonies had an unlimited right to own guns.
First of all, the “original colonies” didn’t all collectively demand that; a particular faction called the Anti-federalists did. And let’s turn your question around: If the Second Amendment is intended to protect the right to personal self-defense, then why are the words “well-regulated militia” in there?
And please note that it says “well-regulated militia”, not “individual unconnected gun enthusiasts”.
Oh, I see - when you completely muddle things and claim fictitious discussions that never happened, then I’m dodging the issue. Yeah, right.:rolleyes:
Wow, do you ever have trouble following a train of thought. Absolutely nothing in that last paragraph of yours is true. Nothing. “Intertwined”, my ass.
Again, your argument is hopelessly confused. First, you argued that this Lautenberg Amendment was an ex post facto law; now you are somehow vaguely trying to connect it to the 14th Amendment. And what’s hilarious is that you continue to argue the point against nobody. Nobody has even contested your assertion, yet you continue to bandy it about as though it were in contention. Quite a masturbatory debating style you have. If you want people to take you seriously, stop with the obfuscation, strawmen, and red herrings.
And just to be clear what’s going on here (because I know you’ll try to misrepresent the argument):
If you are saying that this Lautenberg Amendment is unconstitutional because it violates the 2nd Amendment, then every argument we have made so far regarding the 2nd Amendment would apply, so it’s just more of the same.
But if you are saying that it is unconstitutional for some other reason, then it’s not germane to the present discussion, and nobody is disagreeing with you.
It’s kind of like this:
“Chewbacca is seven feet tall.”
“Well, I don’t really know how tall Chewbacca is, so I can neither agree nor disagree. It’s not germane to the discussion anyway.”
“WHY ARE DODGING THE CHEWBACCA ISSUE?”
Gosh, you really do have a problem with comprehension.
I was clearly using the Lautenberg Amendment to illustrate how those who portray themselves as guardians of the Constitution, don’t really give one whit about the Constitution, as long as their agenda is advanced.
Furthermore, when the adherents of the agenda resort to citing legislation and court “interpretations” and rulings, the Lautenberg Amendment illustrates that both the legislature and judiciary will prostitute themselves to an agenda at the expence of the Constitution.
Oh, I’ve been at this for a long time. Check it out. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=3773894&highlight=Michael+Bellesiles#post3773894
Let’s see… 30 July, 2003
Doggone it, you almost scored a point.
No, I just provided evidence that the government was prohibited from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Doesn’t matter if “all” wanted it or not, the Second Amendment was ratified by enough to become the law of the land.
The Amendment was not needed to protect the right to personal self-defense, that was one of those inalienable rights. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, just as it says. The Amendment also protects the right of the people to form well regulated militias for the security of “the free state”. And that would include securty against a tyrannical government.
And the militia has already been defined numerous times in this thread. And as I previously pointed out, the militia is dependent on the people having arms, not the vice versa as you are trying to imply.
The word “clearly” doesn’t belong in there; nothing you write is clear. I don’t even know where to start pointing out the problems with your argument. First of all, I have no idea who “those who portray themselves as guardians of the Constitution” are (and I don’t think you have any idea what you meant either). Are you talking about the legislative branch? the judicial branch? activists? Some mysterious conspiracy? Second, I can’t believe that you are seriously arguing that one example where you think an unconstitutional law has been passed somehow invalidates every other court ruling on gun laws ever handed down. In fact, you’re not even clear on whether you’re criticizing the courts, or Congress. Third, you still haven’t coherently explained why you think this law is unconstitutional; as I said, if it’s a Second Amendment issue, then I don’t think it’s a valid objection for all the reasons I’ve stated over and over in this thread; and if it’s not a Second Amendment issue, then it’s not relevant to any argument I have made in this discussion. Fourth, you know perfectly well that I brought up the history of court rulings only to counter ph317’s reliance on one obviously-biased Congressional committee report. Ph317 and I both agreed that such appeals to authority do not prove one’s case in and of themselves. In fact, I said:
But as usual, the gist of the discussion just flew completely over your head.
Nobody can argue with you on this, because you have failed to advance any kind of cogent argument.
Oh, I “clearly” explained why.
See, I keep tellin’ ya, it’s your lack of the ability to comprehend that is giving you a problem.
In your dreams…
What matters is your continued vague, sloppy arguments. You say some crap like the “original colonies” “demanded” something. That’s utter horseshit. You say it to try to advance your argument, then when I call you on it, you say it “doesn’t matter”. If it doesn’t matter, then don’t say it.
This is simply a fallacious argument by assertion.
Wrong. Look at your Bill of Rights. The other amendments that include multiple rights use conjunctions like “and”, “or”. If the Second Amendment were intended to simply state two seperate ideas, it would have the word “and” in it. There’s no conjunction in there. It doesn’t say “bear arms” AND “form militias”. It does not “also” protect the right to form militias; that’s all it does.
Yes, and the definition of “militia” is NOT personal self-defense or hunting.
Uh, no. The militia today is the National Guard. Don’t know if you were aware, but they don’t require you to bring your own gun. And even if you did have to, then you only have the right to that gun to the extent that you are participating in a militia.
Razor, the federal government passing a law that you claim is ex post facto has absolutely no bearing on any argument that I have made in this thread. Please, please, try to focus.
Blow, what right is mentioned in the following:
Is it the right of the states to form militias? Hell no, it ain’t. Despite how bad you want it to be, that right ain’t mentioned.
Now, what right is mentioned in the Amendment?
No, it isn’t. The National Guard today is part of the standing army. A standing army was something that the Founding Fathers had deep suspicions of and warned against.
That sounds an awful lot like an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.
The right to form armed state militias. Is English your first language?
No, they were suspicious of the newly formed U.S. Army. They wanted the states to have militias. The 2nd Amendment isn’t about being able to shoot your neighbor, it’s about state powers vs. federal powers.
Yes, we’re all aware that you feel you have an absolute right to own a gun for personal self-defense. I disagree. How much longer do you want to just go back-and-forth on that?
Even if you think the Second Amendment only gives the right for the state to have a well organized militia, this should have no bearing on your personnal right to have a weapon.
The Constitution does not give the people rights. The Constitution gives the government certain powers… certain LIMITED powers. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the people GIVE the government power to take their weapons away. In fact the 10th Amendment says that the people RESERVE all rights not enumerated by the constitution. We allow the government to create a Navy and an Army, etc… its not the government that allows us to have guns. That is a right that is reserved by the people, because it is not given away in the constitution.
I know you missed my question earlier because you are having so much fun playing with the razor. But did you ever give a good cite that this idea jives with the ideas expressed by the Founding Fathers? That is it seems to me that the concept that the militia was not limited to some state sanctioned organization seems to have quite a bit of teeth. While it is true that we use the National Guard for many of the things that the colonies used militias for, it does not necessarily follow that the National Guard has subsumed every and all aspects of the mening of the word militia. Specifically, that they should be the only ones with a constitutionally protected right to bear arms.
This is a small stretch, but look at it this way. You can’t (or at least shouldn’t) be able to define away a right by substituting new words for old concepts. Consider the objections raised about the “combatants” held in cuba. Just because we don’t call them defendants, or citizens, they may not be afforded any of the rights normally assigned to criminals. There is something disturbing about this. In the same way there is something disturbing about your contention that the National Guard is all the militia that the constitution addresses.
O.K., do you have a right to murder? Do you have a right to rape? Do you have a right to steal? Do you have a right to run red lights whenever you feel like it? Do you have a right to fix yourself a bald eagle sandwich with spotted owl sauce? Why not? Does the Bill of Rights specifically say you can’t do those things? No, it doesn’t. You can’t do those things because there are LAWS passed by the LEGISLATURE against doing those things. Legislatures can pass laws, and they do not have to have your personal permission to enforce those laws. We elect our legislatures and they act as our representatives. If they pass a law saying you can’t do x, y, and z, then you can’t do x, y, and z. If x, y, and z are constitutionally-protected, the law will be struck down by the courts. If not, then you’re SOL, and you can whine all you want about your God-given rights, but legally you don’t have a leg to stand on.
No, that’s NOT what it says; it says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” It says the states OR the people. It’s amazing to me how you gun enthusiasts seem to have no compunction about just leaving out key words when you quote the Bill of Rights. You are apparently asserting that the 10th Amendment somehow bars states from passing gun regulations. I can assure you it does no such thing.
Ha, ha - yeah, you shouldn’t play with razors.
That’s a really good point, and no I don’t think the National Guard is equivalent to the militias of colonial times. But you took my quote out of context. Razor said “the militia is dependent on the people having arms”, and I brought up the National Guard only to point out the untruthfullness of that statement. The militia is NOT dependent on people providing their own guns. In fact, the militias that existed in colonial times are no more, so really, the 2nd Amendment is an artifact of a time long since passed, and really shouldn’t be given any more thought than the 3rd Amendment, which nobody even talks about anymore. In theory, if we still had state militias that were b.y.o.g. (bring your own gun), the 2nd Amendment might be important. But that’s not the case. People with guns today are not using them to fight oppression, but rather to threaten and murder each other.
So the question is, if we agree that we’re talking about a kind of militia that doesn’t exist anymore, why is it justified to just substitute “personal self-defense” for militia, when that’s not what they were talking about? You object to “substituting new words for old concepts”, yet that’s precisely what you are doing.
Millions of people in the U.S. have guns. Very few of them are using them to “threaten and murder” others. Indeed, it is illegal to “threaten and murder” others except in limited circumstances, such as legitimate self-defense. And nobody that I’m aware of, not even the NRA, is defending the right of felons to possess firearms.
As for myself, I own guns. I have never threatened anyone in my life, and certainly not with a firearm. It goes without saying that I have never murdered anybody.
I own guns because I feel that it is my right as a citizen to be able to defend myself and my family without being dependent on the police or the government. I have never been threatened or been in fear for my life, but should the situation ever arise, I will not be told by my government that I have no right to protect myself or my family.
As far as “fight[ing] oppression” goes, simply because people with guns are not currently using them for this purpose does not mean that the need will never arise. I have several fire extinguishers, too, which have never been used. Does this mean I should get rid of them?
That’s right, ‘cause if ya do, there’s a good chance that you wind up gettin’ cut.
Horseshit, you said that the National Guard is the militia to give substance to an outright lie. Equally egregious is your refusal to admit that the only right mentioned in the Second Amendment is the “right of the people to keep and bear arms”. The Amendment further states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. To then claim that the right to bear arms only exists when in service of a militia, is an admission of an outright infringement of said right. Just what the Amendment expressly forbids.
Can you not figure out why people are not talking about the Third Amendment? I’d say that it’s because the government is not quartering troops in people’s private homes, but if there were a political faction that was working to do that for the obscure reason that it would be for “the greater good”, then there would be a lot of talk about it, just as there is a lot of talk about the Second Amendment when the faction that wants to remove the right to keep and bear arms from the people, promotes legislation to do just that.
Another damnable lie. Firearms are used many more times annually to protect lives and property, than to threaten and murder.
No one is substituting “personal self-defense” for militia. The right to self-defense is an unalienable right. That’s one of those rights that go along with the right to “Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness”.