Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your example is wrong. Libel and slander are civil matters, not penal. If you slander someone, you haven't committed a crime. You can't go to jail for it.
A better example would be yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. That IS a crime and you CAN go to jail for it.
Precisely. And, when someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater, they harm and endanger others. Merely owning and carrying a weapon harms no one.
Your example is wrong. Libel and slander are civil matters, not penal. If you slander someone, you haven't committed a crime. You can't go to jail for it.
A better example would be yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. That IS a crime and you CAN go to jail for it.
The First Amendment isn't just confined to criminal matters. A government can't compel civil penalties contrary to the First Amendment.
But I agree the "yelling fire" example is another. Yet another would be requiring protesters to obtain permits and limiting the ability of people to protest for various safety or security reasons.
No, that is NOT clearly denoted in the Second. The arms could be stashed in a town armory...remember we ARE talking 18th century America. There weren't many "big cities" at the time.
it is not clearly said in the second amendment, but it was involved with the first legislation on the subject of a militia
The first legislation on the subject was The Militia Act of 1792 which provided, in part:
"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, ... every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock.... "
The First Amendment isn't just confined to criminal matters. A government can't compel civil penalties contrary to the First Amendment.
I think you're misunderstanding (a lot of) things.
You have every right to say whatever you like about anyone. You could say "That swagger likes to have sex with sheep while smoking crack in a car he stole." In doing so, you have broken no law. If what you said about me was untrue and caused some form of damage to me, then I could sue you in civil court for the damage you caused. The police would NOT be involved, because you have not broken any laws.
You need to get a better grip on the difference between civil and criminal law if you're going to try to appear authoritative on it. Frankly, you're looking more and more the fool (IMHO) with each post you write.
Originally Posted by Noahma I don’t find this surprising, because the same can be said about the Christian faith. The fact that there are so many different Christian denominations is because there are as many interpretations of the (same) Gospel as there are Christians.
The bible is open to interpretation simply because there is no supporting documentaion that has survived. There is more than a plefora of information regarding our founding fathers thoughts on the second ammendment, and I ask you again to look back several posts on mine where I quoted the founders on the second amendment issue.
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; "
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
and my personal favorite
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. "
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
I can go on and on and on if you would like the supporting evidence on the second amendment is EXTREMLY CLEAR
Interpol - Kind of extreme and very expensive, but Why Not? There are situations where an a-bomb is an appropriate weapon. I cannot think of a civilian one at this moment but give me some time.
Just for the record. Has any of you ever been in Army Basic Training, Advanced Infantry School or on realistic exercises? There is where you will learn how to use weapons of all kinds and what they will do. Have any of you been to WAR?
I think that ALL of our citizens should be required, as part of the Militia, to take this kind of training even if they have no intention of serving in the armed forces. Then prospective and actual gun owners will have the appropriate training. I believe that there will be far less violent crime if most people are armed.
There may be a revolution or two against an oppressive government but that is a citizens sworn duty.
I have been trained in small arms. I have done several competitions in which shooting badguys and leaving good guys without a hole is the challenge. Some of the rounds are in a dark room, with just your gun and a flashlight.
Not an interesting "interpretation" but fact, given the text:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
States are not mentioned. "Necessary to the security of a free state" means protecting the freedom of the United States as a whole, against foreign enemies or domestic tyrants in the government. "Shall not be infringed" takes away the power of the government to make any infringements upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The words "State" and "States" are used throughout the Constitution and have the meaning of the individual state governments (and by consequence the governments within those states) of the United States. When the Constitution refers to the United States it specifically uses the wording "the United States." Look at Article I, Section 1 and Section 2 for several examples.
Guncite...ahhh the ultimate authority of Constitutional law.
Regulation is left to the state just as Congress has the power to "regulate" interstate commerce. See Article I, Section 8.
And I doubt the regulation of interstate commerce has the meaning of "well armed and trained" interstate commerce. Traditionally when trying to define terms within a statute or legal document, one first looks at how the same or related terms are used within the same document. Turning to dictionaries and other outside sources is not your initial source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
It is certainly an area for the courts to be involved in, assuming they do their job. The courts have the ability to stop infringements of rights by the governments in the U.S. and it is their duty to strike down the laws of DC since the issue came to trial, as they infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Again "infringement of rights" are not involved if the state is regulating the militia via the power granted in the Second Amendment.
Originally Posted by GregWI agree that either the militia or the army should be mandatory. Only then will people truly realise that war is not a game.
Or truly learn to respect firearms.
a Militia is an army of citizens with arms. IE what our second amendment provides us. Any and every male between the age of 18 and 45 are called to be part of the militia. At least what the federalist papers have it outlined as.
Please read my supporting quotes in a previous post.
I think you're misunderstanding (a lot of) things.
You have every right to say whatever you like about anyone. You could say "That swagger likes to have sex with sheep while smoking crack in a car he stole." In doing so, you have broken no law. If what you said about me was untrue and caused some form of damage to me, then I could sue you in civil court for the damage you caused. The police would NOT be involved, because you have not broken any laws.
You need to get a better grip on the difference between civil and criminal law if you're going to try to appear authoritative on it. Frankly, you're looking more and more the fool (IMHO) with each post you write.
Could Congress pass a law that states that one is subject to civil penalties (i.e. non-criminal penalties) if one says "I hate the USA?"
Of course not. The First Amendment is not simply confined to criminal matters. If you want to call me a fool, perhaps you should be the one to look at the difference between civil and criminal matters.
The words "State" and "States" are used throughout the Constitution and have the meaning of the individual state governments (and by consequence the governments within those states) of the United States. When the Constitution refers to the United States it specifically uses the wording "the United States." Look at Article I, Section 1 and Section 2 for several examples.
Guncite...ahhh the ultimate authority of Constitutional law.
Regulation is left to the state just as Congress has the power to "regulate" interstate commerce. See Article I, Section 8.
And I doubt regulate of interstate commerce has the meaning of "well armed and trained" interstate commerce. Traditionally when trying to define terms within, one first looks at how the same or related terms are used within the same document. Turning to dictionaries and other outside sources is not your initial source.
Again "infringement of rights" are not involved if the state is regulating the militia via the power granted in the Second Amendment.
On security of a free state as a phrase, here's a discussion which makes liberal use of Blackstone, who discussed the matter a bit: The Volokh Conspiracy - -
1980 Random House Dictionary, gives the following "obsolete" definition, from 1690:
[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.
1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
Some quotes that illustrate my point (which you would have seen had you clicked on that link):
"I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got. --- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))"
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777. (Journals of the Continental Congress)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don’t find this surprising, because the same can be said about the Christian faith. The fact that there are so many different Christian denominations is because there are as many interpretations of the (same) Gospel as there are Christians.
Only then will people truly realise that war is not a game.