|
Post by jetsorbust on Jan 16, 2014 7:41:11 GMT -6
Except the second amendment is absolutely not plain. I'm not saying there is any major desire to repeal it but to say the language is plain is naive and wrong. The wording and punctuation has long been controversial never mind the intent of the authors who could never have possibly conceived of the weaponry available in a modern world. Can you not concede it's entirely possible the amendment was meant to arm the citizenry for the expressed purpose of forming militias to defend the Union in the context that they felt the need for such militias? I think it's a stretch to say the wording is controversial and that it may not actually be a "right" for gun ownership. But I do agree that the intent was obviously different at the time - muskets for forming militia for defense of the Union as you say, and obviously when it was written todays weapons weren't expected. So I would say the issue is intent, not strict meaning. Either way as Deuce said their are a lot of crazies down there so it won't change anytime soon, even though it obviously should. And this is coming from an owner of several guns.
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Jan 16, 2014 9:58:49 GMT -6
Tim - Im not sure I can agree with your point. Generally I love a good conspiracy but I think the gun people are either nuts who think they need to stockpile weapons for an impending war with government (not terrorists) or average people who want to be armed to protect themselves from crime.
Jetsorbust - There have been many law suits concerning the second ammendement and even battles between the States and the Feds over it. Some argue the amendement simply ensures the feds (ie. Congress) cannot infringe upon the right to bear arms but has no bearing over the individual States' rights to make their own laws.
Others argue over what "the people" even means.
Some argue that the placement of the comma's create different meanings connecting the right to bear arms directly the the need for a militia while others say the amendment separates into two "rights", having a militia and the right to bear arms.
By point of fact, there is not clarity on the wording because the wording is not consistent:
As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:[23]
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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[24]
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.
One must understand the time this was created. "A well-regulated militia" refers to a well trained and disciplined militia. The idea of a standing army during peace times was looked upon with suspicion. Early Americans needed a militia made up of average citizens to defend the nation and they would certainly reject any effort to break up the militia, which Britain had attempted to do.
Another issue is that the Supreme Court has often upheld that the right to bear arms in this case refers to weapons reasonably connected to military defense which in the 1700's was likely very reasonable but today is absurd. At the time of drafting, when defense was needed, citizens were expected to respond to requests to form a militia with weapons supplied by themselves, thus, the right to keep and bear arms *was* for the purpose of always being ready to defend the Union.
Ill leave you with this from Supreme Court Justice Stevens':
"When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. The textual analysis offered by respondent and embraced by the Court falls far short of sustaining that heavy burden. And the Court’s emphatic reliance on the claim “that the Second Amendment … codified a pre-existing right,” ante, at 19 [refers to page 19 of the opinion], is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right.["
ie. keeping and bearing arms is directly related to partaking in a well-regulated militia. In today's context, one could argue that military personel, national guard etc could have weapons (though even that argument likely falls to the common sense logic that in the 1700's the citizens supplised their own weapons of war whereas now the Feds do) but non-military persons do not have that right and thus the States and the Feds would be well within their rights to ban the keeping and bearing of arms.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Jan 16, 2014 10:27:02 GMT -6
Except the second amendment is absolutely not plain. I'm not saying there is any major desire to repeal it but to say the language is plain is naive and wrong. The wording and punctuation has long been controversial never mind the intent of the authors who could never have possibly conceived of the weaponry available in a modern world. Can you not concede it's entirely possible the amendment was meant to arm the citizenry for the expressed purpose of forming militias to defend the Union in the context that they felt the need for such militias? Oh I can concede that the founding fathers had intended the second amendment to address the right to form a militia. I wasn't there so I can't say what they had in mind. What I (and everyone else today) has to do is make a judgement based on available evidence. Here's what we have: 1. The wording of the 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." This is the version passed by Congress. The other 'version' with alternative punctuation is "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." Both versions suggest that the emphasis is on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" with the militia part being preamble. 2. The absence of clarification in the first years of the Union. If the founding fathers wanted to edit the second amendment they had ample opportunity. But they didn't - suggesting their intention was precisely expounded upon by the chosen wording. 3. Over 225 years of judicial confirmation. Judges aren't re-interpreting the second amendment - and if they are they're being overturned on appeal. With aggressiveness. If American judges, well-saturated in the principals of American juris prudence don't see fit to re-interpret the second amendment, how can I? Even if it is interpreted to say the emphasis is on the 'militia' part, then what? OK, I have two machine guns in my bedroom - one for my wife, one for me. We're a militia. (Don't laugh - I think this position was successfully argued in court at some point). That reinterpretation isn't helpful! In fact, I think it's harmful. "We're not a street gang, we're a militia!". The only solution I see is a re-enactment of the political machinations of the Anti Saloon League and the WCTU that brought about constitutional prohibition. And I think the all-powerful NRA would sniff that out instantly. Finally, (and this was news to me!), most Americans want the status quo on gun control! That's the final bullet in the chamber. Even if it's a nonsensical position, it's favoured by a majority. Hence, it's status quo down there for the foreseeable future. Sad but true. m.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Jan 16, 2014 10:32:11 GMT -6
TUP - took too long to compose my post. I like the quote from Stevens but you forgot one extremely important fact about that quote:
It was in dissent!!!
m.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Jan 16, 2014 10:35:16 GMT -6
Except the second amendment is absolutely not plain. I'm not saying there is any major desire to repeal it but to say the language is plain is naive and wrong. The wording and punctuation has long been controversial never mind the intent of the authors who could never have possibly conceived of the weaponry available in a modern world. Can you not concede it's entirely possible the amendment was meant to arm the citizenry for the expressed purpose of forming militias to defend the Union in the context that they felt the need for such militias? I think it's a stretch to say the wording is controversial and that it may not actually be a "right" for gun ownership. But I do agree that the intent was obviously different at the time - muskets for forming militia for defense of the Union as you say, and obviously when it was written todays weapons weren't expected. So I would say the issue is intent, not strict meaning. Either way as Deuce said their are a lot of crazies down there so it won't change anytime soon, even though it obviously should. And this is coming from an owner of several guns. FWIW I don't characterize all supporters of the second amendment, and all NRA members, as 'crazies'. They have some well thought out arguments but I don't find them persuasive. There's a lunatic fringe amongst them but the same can be said of Jets Fans too. m.
|
|
|
Post by phillymike on Jan 16, 2014 10:51:43 GMT -6
I'm honoured that I'm a part of a forum that has members that understand the true spirt of the second amendment more than the 9 members of the United States Supreme Court Justice!
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Jan 16, 2014 11:07:18 GMT -6
There have been members of the Supreme Court who have disagreed with the current acceptance of the second amendment as pointed out by the statement of Justice Stevens, who was giving the dissenting view. His point actually demonstrates why the majority usually uphold the amendment - in his opinion its obvious that the right to keep and bear arms is directly related to a well-regulated militia and to over-turn that, there must be a convincing argument and evidence presented. Whereas those in favour of it argue there must be convincing evidence to over-turn it.
Deuce - if you and your wife have machine guns, you're not a "well regulated militia". Thats the argument that some of the gun nuts would make, that their "group" has stock-piled weapons and engaged in "training" but thats not reasonable. Thats like me going out into the frozen tundra for a week claiming Im training for a mission to mars and declaring myself an astronaught. If we make the connection between bearing arms and a well'regulated militia, then guns should be banned.
As late as the civil war (and likely later), the citizenry were called upon to defend the union. Its only modern times that the idea of a self-armed militia is unreasonable. And coincedently, it's only modern times that weapons technologies have advanced to the point where a "gun enthuesiast" can get his hands on assault rifles.
|
|
|
Post by phillymike on Jan 16, 2014 11:24:20 GMT -6
There have been members of the Supreme Court who have disagreed with the current acceptance of the second amendment as pointed out by the statement of Justice Stevens, who was giving the dissenting view. His point actually demonstrates why the majority usually uphold the amendment - in his opinion its obvious that the right to keep and bear arms is directly related to a well-regulated militia and to over-turn that, there must be a convincing argument and evidence presented. Whereas those in favour of it argue there must be convincing evidence to over-turn it. Deuce - if you and your wife have machine guns, you're not a "well regulated militia". Thats the argument that some of the gun nuts would make, that their "group" has stock-piled weapons and engaged in "training" but thats not reasonable. Thats like me going out into the frozen tundra for a week claiming Im training for a mission to mars and declaring myself an astronaught. If we make the connection between bearing arms and a well'regulated militia, then guns should be banned. As late as the civil war (and likely later), the citizenry were called upon to defend the union. Its only modern times that the idea of a self-armed militia is unreasonable. And coincedently, it's only modern times that weapons technologies have advanced to the point where a "gun enthuesiast" can get his hands on assault rifles. Justice Stevens is no longer an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
|
|
|
Post by jetsorbust on Jan 16, 2014 11:28:35 GMT -6
Tim - Im not sure I can agree with your point. Generally I love a good conspiracy but I think the gun people are either nuts who think they need to stockpile weapons for an impending war with government (not terrorists) or average people who want to be armed to protect themselves from crime. Jetsorbust - There have been many law suits concerning the second ammendement and even battles between the States and the Feds over it. Some argue the amendement simply ensures the feds (ie. Congress) cannot infringe upon the right to bear arms but has no bearing over the individual States' rights to make their own laws. Others argue over what "the people" even means. Some argue that the placement of the comma's create different meanings connecting the right to bear arms directly the the need for a militia while others say the amendment separates into two "rights", having a militia and the right to bear arms. By point of fact, there is not clarity on the wording because the wording is not consistent: As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:[23] 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. As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[24] 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. One must understand the time this was created. "A well-regulated militia" refers to a well trained and disciplined militia. The idea of a standing army during peace times was looked upon with suspicion. Early Americans needed a militia made up of average citizens to defend the nation and they would certainly reject any effort to break up the militia, which Britain had attempted to do. Another issue is that the Supreme Court has often upheld that the right to bear arms in this case refers to weapons reasonably connected to military defense which in the 1700's was likely very reasonable but today is absurd. At the time of drafting, when defense was needed, citizens were expected to respond to requests to form a militia with weapons supplied by themselves, thus, the right to keep and bear arms *was* for the purpose of always being ready to defend the Union. Ill leave you with this from Supreme Court Justice Stevens': "When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. The textual analysis offered by respondent and embraced by the Court falls far short of sustaining that heavy burden. And the Court’s emphatic reliance on the claim “that the Second Amendment … codified a pre-existing right,” ante, at 19 [refers to page 19 of the opinion], is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right.[" ie. keeping and bearing arms is directly related to partaking in a well-regulated militia. In today's context, one could argue that military personel, national guard etc could have weapons (though even that argument likely falls to the common sense logic that in the 1700's the citizens supplised their own weapons of war whereas now the Feds do) but non-military persons do not have that right and thus the States and the Feds would be well within their rights to ban the keeping and bearing of arms. I stopped reading this half-way through and I don't mean that as an insult... I just think 99% of legal debates are stupid. A reasonable person at first read of the statute can see that the right to bear arms was likely the intention, and with all the authors dead I don't see the point in splitting hairs. However, the same reasonable person can see the difference between the right to have a musket centuries ago versus the right to have a 30 round semi-auto pistol.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 16, 2014 11:43:28 GMT -6
Tim - Im not sure I can agree with your point. Generally I love a good conspiracy but I think the gun people are either nuts who think they need to stockpile weapons for an impending war with government (not terrorists) or average people who want to be armed to protect themselves from crime. Jetsorbust - There have been many law suits concerning the second ammendement and even battles between the States and the Feds over it. Some argue the amendement simply ensures the feds (ie. Congress) cannot infringe upon the right to bear arms but has no bearing over the individual States' rights to make their own laws. Others argue over what "the people" even means. Some argue that the placement of the comma's create different meanings connecting the right to bear arms directly the the need for a militia while others say the amendment separates into two "rights", having a militia and the right to bear arms. By point of fact, there is not clarity on the wording because the wording is not consistent: As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:[23] 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. As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[24] 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. One must understand the time this was created. "A well-regulated militia" refers to a well trained and disciplined militia. The idea of a standing army during peace times was looked upon with suspicion. Early Americans needed a militia made up of average citizens to defend the nation and they would certainly reject any effort to break up the militia, which Britain had attempted to do. Another issue is that the Supreme Court has often upheld that the right to bear arms in this case refers to weapons reasonably connected to military defense which in the 1700's was likely very reasonable but today is absurd. At the time of drafting, when defense was needed, citizens were expected to respond to requests to form a militia with weapons supplied by themselves, thus, the right to keep and bear arms *was* for the purpose of always being ready to defend the Union. Ill leave you with this from Supreme Court Justice Stevens': "When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. The textual analysis offered by respondent and embraced by the Court falls far short of sustaining that heavy burden. And the Court’s emphatic reliance on the claim “that the Second Amendment … codified a pre-existing right,” ante, at 19 [refers to page 19 of the opinion], is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right.[" ie. keeping and bearing arms is directly related to partaking in a well-regulated militia. In today's context, one could argue that military personel, national guard etc could have weapons (though even that argument likely falls to the common sense logic that in the 1700's the citizens supplised their own weapons of war whereas now the Feds do) but non-military persons do not have that right and thus the States and the Feds would be well within their rights to ban the keeping and bearing of arms. "I think the gun people are either nuts who think they need to stockpile weapons for an impending war with government(not terrorists) or average people who want to be armed to protect themselves from crime" So if what you say is true then you believe that over 50% of the US population fall into your category and that may be true, but I don't think my idea is a conspiracy. The more people are scared the more they feel they need protection, ask an American what is the biggest threat in America today and you know what the answer will be. Why would one be willing to give up the right to protect themselves no matter what the ongoing threat is, terrorism is just one more treat added to the situation.
|
|
|
Post by phillymike on Jan 16, 2014 11:56:50 GMT -6
I'm interested what Chicago's murder rate will be in 2 years. This will IMO will tell the true story. Chicago has fought for decades to keep guns out of the hands of its residents, yet has had one of the highest murder rates in the US. Now that those laws have been ruled unconstitutional, and gun sales to Chicago residences will be allowed, this social science project will take centre stage. The results will....Actually they probably won't change anything, but it'll let one side say: I told you so!
Living in Philly for 6 years; the people that I know there that own guns (a lot), I can honestly say, they own guns because they want to be able to protect themselves. The amount of guns (illegal, and legal) is astronomical.
There's an old saying, I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6.
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Jan 16, 2014 12:37:47 GMT -6
There have been members of the Supreme Court who have disagreed with the current acceptance of the second amendment as pointed out by the statement of Justice Stevens, who was giving the dissenting view. His point actually demonstrates why the majority usually uphold the amendment - in his opinion its obvious that the right to keep and bear arms is directly related to a well-regulated militia and to over-turn that, there must be a convincing argument and evidence presented. Whereas those in favour of it argue there must be convincing evidence to over-turn it. Deuce - if you and your wife have machine guns, you're not a "well regulated militia". Thats the argument that some of the gun nuts would make, that their "group" has stock-piled weapons and engaged in "training" but thats not reasonable. Thats like me going out into the frozen tundra for a week claiming Im training for a mission to mars and declaring myself an astronaught. If we make the connection between bearing arms and a well'regulated militia, then guns should be banned. As late as the civil war (and likely later), the citizenry were called upon to defend the union. Its only modern times that the idea of a self-armed militia is unreasonable. And coincedently, it's only modern times that weapons technologies have advanced to the point where a "gun enthuesiast" can get his hands on assault rifles. Justice Stevens is no longer an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Which certainly does not diminish his very reasonable argument.
|
|
|
Post by phillymike on Jan 16, 2014 12:45:56 GMT -6
Justice Stevens is no longer an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Which certainly does not diminish his very reasonable argument. Or the others.
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Jan 16, 2014 12:47:23 GMT -6
Tim - I think people are generally reasonable and there isnt a huge fudemental difference between Americans and other western civilizations. I think the key to this issue in the US is the constitution and the "its my right", "..cold dead hand" perspective. Americans are born and bred to be very patriotic and changing the constitution will always be an uphill climb no matter how silly it seems.
Jetsorbust - I will concede that the intention of the amendment was to allow the citizenry to arm themselves. But not because they thought people should be able to protect themselves from home invasions or muggins. It was *because* having every man in the Union armed and ready for battle was their way of preserving a free society in the face of threats from other nations. I also believe there was some gamesmanship between the States and the Feds and certain States wanted protection from Congress.
On it's face we can easily assume the intent was never for a modern society to have access to the sort of weapons they do. I think we can assume they never intended for people to carry handguns everywhere either. The "army" was the people and they wanted the people to maintain their arms for war. By the early 1900's, they should have been trying to change that.
My point is, any effort to advance gun control gets bogged down in debates about the second amendment. Thus, the amendment needs to be repealed and real gun laws instituted.
Phillymike - if a guy is breaking into my house with a gun, do I wish at that moment I also had a gun? Sure. But you know what I truly wish? That neither of us had a gun. I'd rather he be judged by 12 than either of us carried by six.
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Jan 16, 2014 12:48:54 GMT -6
Which certainly does not diminish his very reasonable argument. Or the others. Absolutely. But the point was made that the amendment is clear and my point is that it was never clear from the day it was originally debated to when it was passed up until modern times. There is a reasonable debate to be made about the intent of the amendment.
|
|