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.
nice try grandpa, but you and your liberal antigun buddies continue to fail basic comprehension. you also tend to stop at well regulated militia, and ignore "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". and scotus has ruled that not only does the second amendment apply to the state and local governments as well as the federal, but they hav also ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right, not a collective one.
Then tell me just what the hell military arms are good for in civilian life? They were never intended to included in the 2A BASED ON THE WEAPONS OF THE TIME.
If you knew your history you would know weapons that fired hundred of rounds per minute would ever be considered as "hunting" rifles now or then.
You , like so many other gun nuts, babble on about what the 2A says but tell me where machine guns are covered in the 2A.
The right wing in America is responsible for all of the hate and discontent we now suffer from.
Actually it's the left.
Having a minimum wage-earner pay $96/month for a Social Security retirement benefit of $763/month is good, because Liberals said so.
Having a minimum wage-earner pay $21/month for $500,000 worth of end-of-life-retirement insurance and getting a monthly benefit of $1,600/month for 25 years is evil, because Liberals said so.
How about a little less stupidity and a little more common sense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandpa Pipes
What happened to these once sane people??
My guess is they're busy planning secession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandpa Pipes
"The American Right is fond of putting itself inside the minds of America’s Founders and intuiting what was their “original intent” in writing the U.S. Constitution and its early additions, like the Second Amendment’s “right to bear arms.” But, surely, James Madison and the others weren’t envisioning people with modern weapons mowing down children in a movie theater or a shopping mall or now.......a.kindergarten.
Nice fallacy arguments there -- plural--- apparently we're special and get two of them.
The entire premise here is false. For those of you who don't know -- and it would seem that a great many people don't --- the Constitution was cobbled together by a number of committees. We can actually sit down and read the meeting minutes of these committees, as well as their private correspondence between themselves, and between others who were not on the committees.
In modern legal parlance, this is called "Legislative History." It falls under the larger concept of Statutory Construction, and we can see what Courts have said here.....
"In a statutory construction case, the beginning point must be the language of the statute, and when a statute speaks with clarity to an issue judicial inquiry into the statute's meaning in all but the most extraordinary circumstance is finished." Riva v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 61 F.3d 1003, 1007 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U.S. 469, 475, 120 L. Ed. 2d 379, 112 S. Ct. 2589 (1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, the court need not consult legislative history and other aids to statutory construction when the words of the statute neither create an ambiguity nor lead to an unreasonable interpretation. Riva, 61 F.3d at 1007 (quotations omitted). In searching a statute's text to determine congressional intent, we attribute to words that are not defined in the statute itself their ordinary usage, while keeping in mind that meaning can only be ascribed to statutory language if that language is taken in context. Id. (quotations omitted).
....and here....
In interpreting statutes, the Supreme Court has often recognized the rule "that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers." E.g., United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193, 201, 61 L. Ed. 2d 480, 99 S. Ct. 2721 (1979) (quoting Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 459, 36 L. Ed. 226, 12 S. Ct. 511 (1892)).
....and here....
We read statutory terms in light of their plain meaning. Baum v. Madigan, 979 F.2d 438, 441 (6th Cir. 1992). "'Statutory words are uniformly presumed, unless the contrary appears, to be used in their ordinary and usual sense, and with the meaning commonly attributed to them.'" Ibid. (quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 486, 37 S. Ct. 192, 194, 61 L. Ed. 442 (1917)).
...but sometimes conflicts arise as they did here....
United States v. American Trucking Associations, 310 U.S. 534, 543-44, 84 L. Ed. 1345, 60 S. Ct. 1059 (1940) (footnotes omitted), quoted in Church of Scientology v. United States Department of Justice, 612 F.2d 417, 422 (9th Cir. 1979); accord Burroughs v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, 686 F.2d 723, 727 (9th Cir. 1982).
...and here....
In interpreting a statute, "we begin, as we must, with the express language of the statute . . . . Where, as here, the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, resort to legislative history is unnecessary." Rucker v. Davis, 203 F.3d 627, 636 (9th Cir. 2000); see Citizens Action League v. Kizer, 887 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1989)("In construing a statute, we look first to its plain meaning"). In rare cases where "the literal application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intention of its drafters," an exception should be made to the general plain language rule. United States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235, 242, 103 L. Ed. 2d 290, 109 S. Ct. 1026 (1989). However, the Supreme Court has cautioned against inserting words into a statute when the same words are present in other sections of the same statute. The Supreme Court has stated:
...and also here....
[Where] Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F.2d 720, 722 (5th Cir. 1972); See United States v. Wooten, 688 F.2d 941, 950 (4th Cir. 1982). Had Congress intended to restrict § 1963(a)(1) . . . it presumably would have done so expressly as it did in the immediately following subsection (a)(2). See North Haven Board of Education v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 521, 72 L. Ed. 2d 299, 102 S. Ct. 1912 (1982); United States v. Naftalin, 441 U.S. 768, 773-774, 60 L. Ed. 2d 624, 99 S. Ct. 2077 (1979). In the latter case, id., at 773, the Court said: "The short answer is that Congress did not write the statute that way." We refrain from concluding here that the differing language in the two subsections has the same meaning in each. We would not presume to ascribe this difference to a simple mistake in draftsmanship.
That resulted in the creation of these guidelines....
In recognizing the principle that a statute's language and purpose may at time differ, the Court has stated guidelines for reconciling the two:
There is, of course, no more persuasive evidence of the purpose of a statute than the words by which the legislature undertook to give expression to its wishes. Often these words are sufficient in and of themselves to determine the purpose of the legislation. In such cases we have followed their plain meaning. When that meaning has led to absurd or futile results, however, this Court has looked beyond the words to the purpose of the act. Frequently, however, even when the plain meaning did not produce absurd results but merely an unreasonable one "plainly at variance with the policy of legislation as a whole" this Court has followed that purpose, rather than the literal words. When aid to construction of the meaning of words, as used in the statute, is available, there certainly can be no "rule of law" which forbids its use, however clear the words may appear on "superficial examination."
To that end we note the Supreme Court agrees with what is probably one of the best courts to ever exist in the history of Earth -- perhaps even in the Universe -- the federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals....
In determining the meaning of legislation, we must first look to the plain language of the statute itself. McBarron v. S & T Indus., Inc., 771 F.2d 94, 97 (6th Cir. 1985). "If we find that the statutory language is unambiguous, then that language is regarded as conclusive unless there is a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary." Bradley v. Austin, 841 F.2d 1288, 1293 (6th Cir. 1988). Courts need only to examine the legislative history of a statute when its terms are ambiguous, see id., or where enforcement of the plain terms of the statute would "'produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intention of [the statute's] drafters.'" United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 242, 103 L. Ed. 2d 290, 109 S. Ct. 1026 (1989) (quoting Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 571, 73 L. Ed. 2d 973, 102 S. Ct. 3245 (1982)).
...and...
"Particular phrases must be construed in light of the overall purpose and structure of the whole statutory scheme." (citing Dole v. United Steelworkers of Am., 494 U.S. 26, 35, 108 L. Ed. 2d 23, 110 S. Ct. 929 (1990)); Oates v. Oates, 866 F.2d 203, 206 (6th Cir.) (a fundamental rule of statutory construction is that statutory language is to be read in pertinent context rather than in isolation), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1109, 104 L. Ed. 2d 1025, 109 S. Ct. 3163 (1989).
2nd Amendment
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.
10th Amendment
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 is clear both Amendment fit into the Checks & Balances scheme that is prevalent throughout the entire Constitution.
This system of both power-sharing and Checks & Balances the Framers of the Constitution came up with is just like an equilateral triangle; all three sides are equal and the parties are the federal government (which no longer exists), the States (who have been emasculated of any power) and the People (who are about to be neutered).
I was jumping through those hoops in support of this very fine observation...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
nice try grandpa, but you and your liberal antigun buddies continue to fail basic comprehension. you also tend to stop at well regulated militia, and ignore "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". and scotus has ruled that not only does the second amendment apply to the state and local governments as well as the federal, but they hav also ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right, not a collective one.
Note this...
"The idea was to enable the young country to resist aggression from European powers, to confront Native American tribes on the frontier and to put down internal rebellions, including slave revolts. There was nothing particularly idealistic in this provision; the goal was the 'security' of the young nation."
...the moron conveniently omits the fact that the 2nd Amendment is a check against the power of a tyrannical government.
This....
"Indeed, when the Second Amendment was passed in the First Congress as part of the Bill of Rights, firearms were single-shot mechanisms that took time to load and reload."
....is a Red Herring.
The type of weapons in existence doesn't matter.
Even funnier is the fact that the moron contradicts himself and destroys his own argument here....
"The idea was to enable the young country to resist aggression from European powers, to confront Native American tribes on the frontier and to put down internal rebellions, including slave revolts."
If the Native American tribes had been equipped with chain guns and automatic weapons, then muskets wouldn't exactly provide the required security would it? Nope.
The people need to be comparably armed vis-a-vis the threat, and if they are not, then the whole spirit and intent of the 2nd Amendment is undermined and rendered useless.
Legally...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Sheer partisan screed both from OP and his link as evidence by the many references to "the right," "right wing," etc. A legit, reasoned debate over constitutional law does not go that route.
Well, some of us already knew that knowing the history of the OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
The Second Amendment was largely ignored by scholars until the past quarter century or so. The standard line was that it applied to the national guard, not the individual citizen. That was what I leaned in high school civics class.
All governments use propaganda. The National Guard is nothing more than an extension of the federal army, which contradicts the spirit and intent of the 2nd Amendment. It's in their nature and in their best interest. The function and purpose of any government is to expand and acquire absolute power.
Why?
Hell, I don't know...maybe because they attract Alpha-Types. Gather together a large number of Alpha-Types and get them moving collectively....what do you expect?
I mean they're not exactly going to sit in a corner and sulk.
Maybe we can create more docile bureaucrats --- you know like using male and female eunuchs -- circumcise and castrate the males at birth, and then circumcise and remove the uteri and ovaries from females at birth....then train them to be bureaucrats.
Could we change the word ' bureaucrats' to whining liberals?
Maybe we can create more docile liberals --- you know like using male and female eunuchs -- circumcise and castrate the males at birth, and then circumcise and remove the uteri and ovaries from females at birth....then train them to be bureaucrats.
There that reads much better to me now..... I don't see it's any problem really since most of them have no idea which sex they are now....
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 see it's any problem really since most of them have no idea which sex they are now....