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.
Again the Miller case was heard with only one side present and no one offering an argument hence the decision using the careful wording of 'absence of any evidence' and remanding the case back to the District Court for further proceedings
And yes, in Heller the ruling decision is quite clear and being that we operate under the common law system of precedents, with the Supreme Court being the highest Court in the land and interpreter of the Constitution, then its interpretation of the amendment under Heller is the ruling law of the land be it decided slim majority or a plurality of justices makes no difference until a case comes along which causes them to overule themselves on the issue.
I still don't see what's so wrong with first repealing the amendment then going hog wild on whatever you wish to limit citizens from owning in regards to arms. That would get rid of all legal arguments against such laws.
Again, the Miller case was used for 70-years as precedent, even in the Supreme Court. Your point is mooted by the use of the Miller case in subsequent rulings.
The point is that we don't have to repeal the second amendment because gun advocates are misinterpreting it. We can bring another case to the Supreme Court after a new appointment or two and watch it overturn Heller.
The intent of the second amendment was to protect individual states against the tyranny of the national government. Anyone who claims the second amendment meant to protect the right to defend your household and personal possessions needs a lesson in US history.
Again, the Miller case was used for 70-years as precedent, even in the Supreme Court. Your point is mooted by the use of the Miller case in subsequent rulings.
The point is that we don't have to repeal the second amendment because gun advocates are misinterpreting it. We can bring another case to the Supreme Court after a new appointment or two and watch it overturn Heller.
The intent of the second amendment was to protect individual states against the tyranny of the national government. Anyone who claims the second amendment meant to protect the right to defend your household and personal possessions needs a lesson in US history.
So the decision in Miller that restricted to sawed off shotguns possibly not being a good enough weapon for militia fighting that wasnt really decided but merely remanded back to the lower court was Constitutional gold because you believe it fits your view of the Constitution, but Heller is just a bunch of nonsense which has little to no legitmacy as a ruling or interpretation of the Constitution because you do not approve of those justices' findings.
The intent of giving individuals the right to bear arms is quite clear in the federalist papers (among other documents) written by, you know, the guys who drafted the Constitution. (and yes it was primarily to prevent governmental tyranny, but by giving power to the individual not strictly the state).
I won't even disagree that banning guns will make society safer, I merely do not believe that one can accomplish any such ban on ownership without running afoul of the Constitution as it is presently written. I am more concerened with following the procedures of replacing laws or amendments that are disagreed with rather then simply trying to ignore or find ways around a right that is clearly stated. The Patriot Act did way too much of that with massive bipartison support to scare me.
I think this horse has been beat to death and that we will have to agree to disagree.
So the decision in Miller that restricted to sawed off shotguns possibly not being a good enough weapon for militia fighting that wasnt really decided but merely remanded back to the lower court was Constitutional gold because you believe it fits your view of the Constitution, but Heller is just a bunch of nonsense which has little to no legitmacy as a ruling or interpretation of the Constitution because you do not approve of those justices' findings.
No, Miller is "constitutional gold" because it was cited as precedent in upholding restrictions on gun ownership.
No, Heller is not a bunch of nonsense. It's a slim majority that could be overturned by one appointment made over the next four years.
I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. I'm not fine with you putting words in my mouth.
I look forward to your Federalist Paper citations.
It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."
Maybe the NRA should try reading the Federalist Papers instead of inventing a history that didn't exist. Hamilton is quite clear that the right to bear arms is a check against the tyranny of government.
No, Miller is "constitutional gold" because it was cited as precedent in upholding restrictions on gun ownership.
No, Heller is not a bunch of nonsense. It's a slim majority that could be overturned by one appointment made over the next four years.
I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. I'm not fine with you putting words in my mouth.
I look forward to your Federalist Paper citations.
I'm off to bed, but I'm sure you can google all the statements made by all those guys in wigs as they argued every part of the constitution, i'll just leave the statements by the Pennsylvania delegation As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
As I stated my beef isnt with the concept of banning guns but by the attempt of skirting the constitution and Miller does not allow this as much as you would want it to and was a remand of a case only as much as you want it to be a definitive decision.
Though I'm sure you know better then Supreme Court justices on that subject, see also.
Printz v US Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."
or what Heller said directly Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."
I look forward to your Federalist Paper citations.
Do you have some? I didn't notice any. It strikes me as out of character for the likes of Madison to randomly have one amendment that refers only to collective rights and not individual rights, or for them to believe that individuals didn't have the rights to own their own guns in the context of late 18th century United States, when there were still things like attacks by Native Americans, random crimes in the middle of nowhere with no organized police force of the likes we know today, and a lot more hunting. And it's also worth noting that the original view of Madison was that the Bill of Rights wasn't even a necessity, that anything not covered in the text of the Constitution itself meant that the government should stay out of it (his naivete being rather hilarious in retrospect). Lack of clear mention of the individual right to own arms for personal self-defense doesn't mean that they didn't believe in it and doesn't mean that they didn't feel it was a right.
The Bill of Rights was written in the context of its time, in the fight over the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment was written to appease those afraid of strengthening federal power, a federal power that might grow to be a tyrant. In that context? The individual right to self-defense, at least for the white men the Constitution and BoR were written for, was a "went without saying" thing and some of the state constitutions written by some of the same people debating these issues at that time made the individual right to self-defense through use of firearms more clear. The Bill of Rights wasn't supposed to be all encompassing, just some of the key issues that really bothered them at that time. Again, see the arguments over whether the Bill of Rights was even considered a necessity based on their attitudes of the time and also see the ridiculously neglected 9th and 10th amendments.
Now whether the intent of the framers should even matter in 2012 is a different discussion all together. People only look to their intent during ridiculous arguments, even though very little about government today would have been supported by them, and the rights of women and minorities wouldn't have been supported by them. So why it randomly matters is beyond me. But I think that if you used a time machine and grabbed Hamilton or Madison from the past and asked them point blank about whether or not the federal government should take all guns from white male property owners, they'd laugh in your face.
Last edited by sparrowmint; 12-27-2012 at 10:18 PM..
My observation over 60 years is that the guns are essentially the same but the people are not. Of course we always had crazy people but now the media and the culture of today directs these crazy people toward total unpredictable directions. I do believe that if not guns then they would just go on to other tools in the community of which there are many. Yes schools should be made safer. Teachers should be allowed armed carry. The buildings should reflect an awareness of security.
Do you have some? I didn't notice any. It strikes me as out of character for the likes of Madison to randomly have one amendment that refers to collective rights and not individual rights, or for them to believe that individuals didn't have the rights to own their own guns in the context of late 18th century United States, when there were still things like attacks by Native Americans, random crimes in the middle of nowhere with no organized police force of the likes we know today, and a lot more hunting. And it's also worth noting that the original view of Madison was that the Bill of Rights wasn't even a necessity, that anything not covered in the text of the Constitution itself meant that the government should stay out of it (his naivete being rather hilarious in retrospect). Lack of clear mention of the individual right to own arms for personal self-defense doesn't mean that they didn't believe in it and doesn't mean that they didn't feel it was a right. The Bill of Rights wasn't supposed to be all encompassing, just some of the key issues that really bothered them at that time. Again, see the arguments over whether the Bill of Rights was even considered a necessity based on their attitudes of the time and also see the ridiculously neglected 9th and 10th amendments.
Now whether the intent of the framers should even matter in 2012 is a different discussion all together. People only look to their intent during ridiculous arguments, even though very little about government today would have been supported by them. So why it randomly matters is beyond me.
The Library of Congress has the full text of the Federalist Papers available online:
Personally, I find Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton to be indispensable when debating constitutional issues.
I haven't found any evidence in the Federalist Papers indicating an intent to protect one's household from an intruder. The controversy is about raising a national army, which came to a dramatic head in the Whiskey Rebellion. Remarking that Hamilton or Madison spoke to individuals, not states, bearing arms is a straw man.
Personally, I find Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton to be indispensable when debating constitutional issues.
I haven't found any evidence in the Federalist Papers indicating an intent to protect one's household from an intruder. The controversy is about raising a national army, which came to a dramatic head in the Whiskey Rebellion. Remarking that Hamilton or Madison spoke to individuals, not states, bearing arms is a straw man.
Why would there be one? The purpose of the Federalist Papers was to convince people to ratify the Constitution and to not be so afraid of a slightly strengthened federal government. They were written before the Bill of Rights was. Here's Hamilton's take on how dangerous the very idea of the Bill of Rights is:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?
It wasn't a treatise on the full breadth of every single thing those people believed in terms of natural rights or anything else. Again, Madison (and Hamilton) didn't even think the Bill of Rights was necessary, that everything in there and more went without saying. Since he didn't want to originally include a codified right to free speech, does that mean he didn't believe it? This is exactly what he feared, from his point of view, that if he wrote a Bill of Rights, that people would get the idea that these are the only rights there are. If you think their opinion on individual gun rights isn't clear, THAT idea certainly is clear. But really, you think these men of the late 18th century, in the context of everything else they believed and of their times, actually believed that individual white men didn't have the right to own guns for individual self-defense?
The question people need to ask is why the hell it matters.
If you think their opinion on individual gun rights isn't clear, THAT idea certainly is clear. But really, you think these men of the late 18th century, in the context of everything else they believed and of their times, actually believed that individual white men didn't have the right to own guns for individual self-defense?
I think their opinion on individual gun rights is clear. Also clear is why the second amendment was deemed necessary. Both Madison and Hamilton went on at length about it. Gun advocates should amend the constitution to strike the part about the militia. That part of the second amendment isn't there for giggles.
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.
