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.
Except the SCOTUS has interpreted the militia clause as a preamble.
I don't buy that rationalization - at least not the way some gun-control opponents understand it, even when voiced by a SCOTUS decision, when the same decision found that:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.... the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose... nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
and the active clause to be "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".
Yet, the SCOTUS clearly indicates that, absent what you call the "preamble", the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall be infringed, and even list specific ways it is infringed, and says clearly that the decision isn't to be interpreted as taking anything away from the legitimacy of that infringement. So you're essentially playing a word game, a very dangerous word game given how so many gun-control opponents are quick to fixate on "shall not be infringed" and fail utterly to even acknowledge "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Even should there be such a ruling there is no legal definition of what "well-regulated" constitutes, nor who regulates, therefore three guys who meet on a Saturday afternoon to drink some beers, tell each other some lies and watch a movie could in law be considered a "well regulated militia" given there is no legal definition.
Yet clearly (a) regulation is right and proper; and (b) when such questions come up, they are supposed to be addressed by the due process of government, including judicial review, and the decisions made at each step along that path respected until the decision is rendered at the next step along that path - i.e., the laws honored while they're in force, even if you believe that they shouldn't be, with the only righteous violation being one that is public and open, inviting (essentially demanding) arrest and remanding, for the purpose of initiating judicial review. Anything else is simply scurrilous rationalization for transgression and antisocial posturing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
US laws are not the constitution, they depend on the constitution for legality, but are not of themselves part of the constitution, which is why they're called statutes. Indeed there could be laws that prevent me from forming a militia (there are not in my state), but once again there is no clause in the constitution that prevents me from doing so (you failed to get a cookie), which rebuts your argument that the constitution does not permit me to form a militia, the constitution neither permits me to form a Militia nor prevents me from doing so.
I know you read what I wrote, even though your response is not responsive to it, so I guess I have to repeat it: "There can be laws that do so." I see no way you could misinterpret that in the manner your response seems to indicate, so perhaps we could start over with a different response from you to what I stated, just there? Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
So then what you're actually saying is that in the context of people protecting themselves against a tyrannic government, that we need to refer to one wing of that government to determine whether that government is actually tyrannic?
I think there is a second level to this. The tyranny that is of concern at the time was the tyranny of a remote government on the local jurisdiction. It was a reflection of the concern about having a federal government. Some of the state constitutions actually predate the US Constitution (essentially being amended to account for the establishment of the federal union) and so tyranny from within the state is a matter for the state to address. How does this help? By making clear that the balance you're seeking would have been asserted by the state, against the federal government.
However, we know, now, that that's not the case today. Today. Something changed: The Fourteenth Amendment and its ramifications. Cutting to the crux of the issue, no, there is no longer any constitutional right to take up arms to protect against a tyrannic government. Rather, the law is such now that the only constitutional approach is to defer to the balance of power between the three branches of government. Like it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
We fought a war on states rights and the Federal government won.
Precisely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
The founders intended for your vote and your free speech as the personal check of the government, not your gun.
I think some might take issue with whether or not the founders specifically intended this, but it is clear that, given what has happened over the last 224 years, that's the effective reality of constitutional rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
If your state decided the federal government had gone to far, you coukd leave the union. Thats what many felt was a just and legal cause. All of that went away with the 14th amendment, which stripped the states of any real power outside of the amendment process.
Again: Precisely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
You make it seem militias are some noble group who only have their communities best interest at heart, when in fact they are merely people who susceptible to the same ills as the mob.
And if you correlate those people who support this unrestrained, faulty interpretation of the Second Amendment, in the context of militias, with other perspectives they support, you'll find a high correlation with other self-focused perspectives, and a more general callous disregard for the most vulnerable in society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
It is if I accidentally cut him off on the road and he shoots my @ss.
I know you intended this flippantly, but there is a serious undercurrent. The casual degradation of respect for and acknowledgment of social obligations and civic responsibility makes this flippant remark increasingly a legitimate concern. When self-serving perspectives are ratified repeatedly, that feeds on itself in the minds of those most prone to placing their own secondary interests over the primary interests of others. In the revolutionary era, a person with a firearm, who happened upon a highway robbery, recalling the story of the Good Samaritan, perhaps, would understand and act on the obligation to help the vulnerable folks, as best as they could. They'd understand that their right to bear arms, in that context, comes with an obligation to others to use those arms to protect those who need protection, not only themselves, if not legally then at least morally. With the break-down of that moral precept, due to the elevation of selfishness over social conscience, I doubt we can rely on many of our people to be Good Samaritans anymore.
The endless debate about what the founders intended with the 2nd Amendment is pointless. The Constitution can be changed.
The question is what do we intend in this very different age? Is firearm distribution to anybody and everybody a net asset or a net liability?
I disagree. The supreme court interprets the constitution. As such, they often go through years of writings by the main crafters of the constitution, to understand what they meant. A prime example of that is the separation of church and state. This is never said in the final ratified draft of the constitution. Yet, because many founders wrote about that, and it was clear that was their intention, the supreme court enforces it with legal precedent.
The founders supported restrictions on "arms", as so many today only sees this as a gun. A modern law that I never hear these guys talk about is that if you have a hot dog wrapper over a knife or a screwdriver in your back seat, you can be arrested for a concealed deadly weapon.
All of that feeds into assault weapons bans, restrictions on magazine sizes, etc.
in Virginia in 1792, you couldn't walk through Richmond with a loaded musket or a axe on your shoulder. It was deemed to intimidating. Not unsafe, intimidating. And people think yiu should walk arojnd with a loaded bazooka today.
The problem in this country is that people either don't care about history, don't know history, or replace it with their own narrow view. For example, Jefferson wasn't talking about armed overthrow of these United States when he phrased the "tree of liberty". He was talking about France, and many other European Monarchs and emperors.
Its not going to change. Look at Colorado, they lost two seats by recall. Not an easy thing to do. This will send a shock wave through many politicians who will now think twice about pushing or voting for anti gun laws. It is looking more and more like 14 is gong to be a Republican year. Many will say guns had something to do with that. When will democrats learn that guns are a third rail. It will only lose them votes. Just as Social Security does for the Republicans when they want to privatize it.
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.
