The Right To Bear Arms

[Pogo]

No you didn't. 'Intent' is a noun that's the object of the preposition 'by' modified by the adjective 'original'. Nothing adverbial there at all. Try again.

Konrad is 100% correct here.
If "original intent" were an adverbial phrase -- what would it modify?

Very interesting thread, and the distinction between the collective "people" and individual "person" is a fascinating lead. Konrad, you may be the only poster I've seen today who's not only familiar with English but proficient at it.

I don't see an issue with the comma there or not there if we're looking at the last one. I don't even see its function. Whether militia is capitalized or not has an interesting theory in the link. I would point out that at the time of the writing we were still capitalizing nouns as a holdover from our parent language German, although this was dying out at this time and that may account for the change from majuscule to minuscule. Or it may not. Another fascinating lead.

I would just add that if the intent and interpretation of Amendments were clear prima facie, then we wouldn't need a Supreme Court to address them.

And the Court has addressed this Amendment. Consistently ruling that military type weapons in "common use" are what is protected and that it conveys an INDIVIDUAL right.

That prolly depends on how it was / could be argued.

 

[westwall]

Konrad is 100% correct here.
If "original intent" were an adverbial phrase -- what would it modify?

Very interesting thread, and the distinction between the collective "people" and individual "person" is a fascinating lead. Konrad, you may be the only poster I've seen today who's not only familiar with English but proficient at it.

I don't see an issue with the comma there or not there if we're looking at the last one. I don't even see its function. Whether militia is capitalized or not has an interesting theory in the link. I would point out that at the time of the writing we were still capitalizing nouns as a holdover from our parent language German, although this was dying out at this time and that may account for the change from majuscule to minuscule. Or it may not. Another fascinating lead.

I would just add that if the intent and interpretation of Amendments were clear prima facie, then we wouldn't need a Supreme Court to address them.

And the Court has addressed this Amendment. Consistently ruling that military type weapons in "common use" are what is protected and that it conveys an INDIVIDUAL right.

That prolly depends on how it was / could be argued.

I find the collectivist mentality amusing. the Bill of Rights are very clearly a list of controls on what government can do and is a limitation on the governments ability to impose its will on the People. Only in the twisted psyche of a anti freedom person could the 2nd ever be construed as a right given to the GOVERNMENT to bear arms. The fundamental lack of logic and critical thinking skills that that implies are simply staggering.

The government fields armies, why, oh why would it EVER need an amendment to protect its "right" to have weapons. Governments have no "rights", governments are power. PEOPLE have rights.

Get that through your thick skulls.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Konrad is 100% correct here.
If "original intent" were an adverbial phrase -- what would it modify?

Very interesting thread, and the distinction between the collective "people" and individual "person" is a fascinating lead. Konrad, you may be the only poster I've seen today who's not only familiar with English but proficient at it.

I don't see an issue with the comma there or not there if we're looking at the last one. I don't even see its function. Whether militia is capitalized or not has an interesting theory in the link. I would point out that at the time of the writing we were still capitalizing nouns as a holdover from our parent language German, although this was dying out at this time and that may account for the change from majuscule to minuscule. Or it may not. Another fascinating lead.

I would just add that if the intent and interpretation of Amendments were clear prima facie, then we wouldn't need a Supreme Court to address them.

And the Court has addressed this Amendment. Consistently ruling that military type weapons in "common use" are what is protected and that it conveys an INDIVIDUAL right.

That prolly depends on how it was / could be argued.

Since 39 the ruling has been referred to in at least 2 other cases. Case law is clear, the weapons protected by the second are military type that are in common usage by the military.

Without a new case CHANGING that case law it is set.

 

[Pogo]

And the Court has addressed this Amendment. Consistently ruling that military type weapons in "common use" are what is protected and that it conveys an INDIVIDUAL right.

That prolly depends on how it was / could be argued.

I find the collectivist mentality amusing. the Bill of Rights are very clearly a list of controls on what government can do and is a limitation on the governments ability to impose its will on the People. Only in the twisted psyche of a anti freedom person could the 2nd ever be construed as a right given to the GOVERNMENT to bear arms. The fundamental lack of logic and critical thinking skills that that implies are simply staggering.

The government fields armies, why, oh why would it EVER need an amendment to protect its "right" to have weapons. Governments have no "rights", governments are power. PEOPLE have rights.

Get that through your thick skulls.

Either reading is a lost art, or I lost where anyone suggested that.

==========================

And the Court has addressed this Amendment. Consistently ruling that military type weapons in "common use" are what is protected and that it conveys an INDIVIDUAL right.

That prolly depends on how it was / could be argued.

Since 39 the ruling has been referred to in at least 2 other cases. Case law is clear, the weapons protected by the second are military type that are in common usage by the military.

Without a new case CHANGING that case law it is set.

A new case is exactly what "could be argued" means. Anyway I'm not interested in which weapons are witch. My interest is linguistic. I'm far more interested in the other side of the sentence -- the meaning of "the people". As well as "well-regulated".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That all you got, a stupid one-liner? It's obviously not what I said, revealing that you can't deal with what I did say.

Nope, just making an observation. Could you be a little more specific, if the second amendment was meant for a collective how would it have been applied?

Basically the way we do now with registrations and background checks. I didn't offer any new restrictions, just making the observation that, IMO, the restrictions we have now are not unconstitutional. Much is made of the phrase "shall make no law", which I believe refers to the total banning of firearms, because it's a right given to "the people" in the amendment, not to a "person". Therefore, registration and background checks are permitted to make it easier to keep criminals and the insane from getting guns legally. It's not perfect, but even stolen and black market guns can be traced and crimes solved by the registration process and the records required of gun manufacturers.

As already correctly noted, the Second Amendment enshrines an individual, not collective, right – that’s settled and accepted law.

You are correct, however, with regard to the constitutionality of such restrictions as registration and background checks, only an outright ban of a protected class of weapons would be un-Constitutional.

Therefore, the issue isn’t the specific restrictions, but the jurisdiction – or a Federal law or laws in particular.

In my state, for example, there is no licensing or registration requirement, semi-automatic rifles with 30 round debatable magazines and pistol grips are perfectly legal.

And I and my fellow residents prefer to keep it that way; indeed, we would challenge any Federal statute designed to require licensing or registration.

Why do so many 2nd amendment 'experts' readily concede that the right to own automatic weapons is not covered by the 2nd amendment?

Any modern day militia would presumably have them.

There are two legal concepts associated with the regulation of firearms: ‘dangerous and unusual’ and ‘in common use.’ What firearms may be subject to regulation and those not subject to regulation are predicated on those two criteria.

The problem concerns which category a given firearm – or class of weapons – might be assigned.

There is likely no ‘right’ to own a fully automatic weapon because they are not ‘in common use,’ which is why they’re subject to regulation per the NFA.

There’s also likely no right to own an RPG as such a weapon could be construed to be ‘dangerous and unusual.’ (Also not on common use…)

 

[westwall]

Nope, just making an observation. Could you be a little more specific, if the second amendment was meant for a collective how would it have been applied?

Basically the way we do now with registrations and background checks. I didn't offer any new restrictions, just making the observation that, IMO, the restrictions we have now are not unconstitutional. Much is made of the phrase "shall make no law", which I believe refers to the total banning of firearms, because it's a right given to "the people" in the amendment, not to a "person". Therefore, registration and background checks are permitted to make it easier to keep criminals and the insane from getting guns legally. It's not perfect, but even stolen and black market guns can be traced and crimes solved by the registration process and the records required of gun manufacturers.

As already correctly noted, the Second Amendment enshrines an individual, not collective, right – that’s settled and accepted law.

You are correct, however, with regard to the constitutionality of such restrictions as registration and background checks, only an outright ban of a protected class of weapons would be un-Constitutional.

Therefore, the issue isn’t the specific restrictions, but the jurisdiction – or a Federal law or laws in particular.

In my state, for example, there is no licensing or registration requirement, semi-automatic rifles with 30 round debatable magazines and pistol grips are perfectly legal.

And I and my fellow residents prefer to keep it that way; indeed, we would challenge any Federal statute designed to require licensing or registration.

Why do so many 2nd amendment 'experts' readily concede that the right to own automatic weapons is not covered by the 2nd amendment?

Any modern day militia would presumably have them.

There are two legal concepts associated with the regulation of firearms: ‘dangerous and unusual’ and ‘in common use.’ What firearms may be subject to regulation and those not subject to regulation are predicated on those two criteria.

The problem concerns which category a given firearm – or class of weapons – might be assigned.

There is likely no ‘right’ to own a fully automatic weapon because they are not ‘in common use,’ which is why they’re subject to regulation per the NFA.

There’s also likely no right to own an RPG as such a weapon could be construed to be ‘dangerous and unusual.’ (Also not on common use…)

Also an RPG is considered "ordnance" which is not covered under the 2nd. Although the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts (which still exists BTW) was a private group that still has the artillery pieces they purchased back in the 1600's, is the exception to that rule.

 

[tap4154]

Here's a girl who doesn't understand the Second Amendment, or what MPH is. She is the quintessential Obama voter...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhm7-LEBznk]The real meaning of MPH- The Original- TCHappenings - YouTube[/ame]

 

[tap4154]

The confusion seems to be over an individual vs collective right. To me the 2nd would seem to be collective in that it mentions "the people" vs amendments like the 5th where the word "person" is used, making it an individual right. Therefore, totally banning guns would be a violation, but requiring things like registration and competency and background checks would not. "The people" also have the right: A) to make sure guns don't get into the wrong hands, i.e. criminals and the insane and B) to know if guns are being stockpiled by whom and where. Remember, just because someone says they're doing it because they don't trust the government, doesn't automatically mean we should trust them. The 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact.

Did you read the primer I linked to? It explains very clearly why it is an individual right, using commonly accepted language.

If it's an individual right, how can felons be barred from owning them? Try again.

Because you felons lose your right to vote, or own guns.

Read twice, and rinse.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The confusion seems to be over an individual vs collective right. To me the 2nd would seem to be collective in that it mentions "the people" vs amendments like the 5th where the word "person" is used, making it an individual right. Therefore, totally banning guns would be a violation, but requiring things like registration and competency and background checks would not. "The people" also have the right: A) to make sure guns don't get into the wrong hands, i.e. criminals and the insane and B) to know if guns are being stockpiled by whom and where. Remember, just because someone says they're doing it because they don't trust the government, doesn't automatically mean we should trust them. The 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact.

Did you read the primer I linked to? It explains very clearly why it is an individual right, using commonly accepted language.

If it's an individual right, how can felons be barred from owning them? Try again.

Ever heard of due process?

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Did you read the primer I linked to? It explains very clearly why it is an individual right, using commonly accepted language.

If it's an individual right, how can felons be barred from owning them? Try again.

Because you felons lose your right to vote, or own guns.

Read twice, and rinse.

Yep don't hear them bitching about that.

 

[Sallow]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your cartoon is deceptive. The states or the government do not have any constitutionally protected rights to firearms. The private citizens does. Stop with the knee jerk reaction bullshit.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Your cartoon is deceptive. The states or the government do not have any constitutionally protected rights to firearms. The private citizens does. Stop with the knee jerk reaction bullshit.

He can't help it, it's all he's got...

 

[Sallow]

Your cartoon is deceptive. The states or the government do not have any constitutionally protected rights to firearms. The private citizens does. Stop with the knee jerk reaction bullshit.

He can't help it, it's all he's got...

Basically..no it isn't.

And it's really a twisted concept of the 2nd amendment that conservatives have shitted upon this country that keeps people with a hankering to shoot kids in the face, fully armed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your cartoon is deceptive. The states or the government do not have any constitutionally protected rights to firearms. The private citizens does. Stop with the knee jerk reaction bullshit.

He can't help it, it's all he's got...

Basically..no it isn't.

And it's really a twisted concept of the 2nd amendment that conservatives have shitted upon this country that keeps people with a hankering to shoot kids in the face, fully armed.

Dude it's very simple. The states/ the Government does not have a Constitutionally protected right to firearms. The Private citizen does.

 

[Sallow]

He can't help it, it's all he's got...

Basically..no it isn't.

And it's really a twisted concept of the 2nd amendment that conservatives have shitted upon this country that keeps people with a hankering to shoot kids in the face, fully armed.

Dude it's very simple. The states/ the Government does not have a Constitutionally protected right to firearms. The Private citizen does.

Again..a twisted concept of the constitution is and exactly what it does.

And that's probably because your historical context is lacking.

Which is part of the problem of relying on a document that is close to three hundred years old to provide guidance in the governance of a modern society.

The government is made up of private citizens. Which is part of the rationale for arming them. They were meant to be what was defending the nation against invasion and insurrection.

The Continental Congress had no intention of keeping a federally controlled professional army, permanent.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Basically..no it isn't.

And it's really a twisted concept of the 2nd amendment that conservatives have shitted upon this country that keeps people with a hankering to shoot kids in the face, fully armed.

Dude it's very simple. The states/ the Government does not have a Constitutionally protected right to firearms. The Private citizen does.

Again..a twisted concept of the constitution is and exactly what it does.

And that's probably because your historical context is lacking.

Which is part of the problem of relying on a document that is close to three hundred years old to provide guidance in the governance of a modern society.

The government is made up of private citizens. Which is part of the rationale for arming them. They were meant to be what was defending the nation against invasion and insurrection.

The Continental Congress had no intention of keeping a federally controlled professional army, permanent.

PART of the rationale. The rest of it is the right to defend oneself and one's family and property from the criminal acts of another.

You're not getting the guns, so you might as well get used to the idea.

 

[Sallow]

Dude it's very simple. The states/ the Government does not have a Constitutionally protected right to firearms. The Private citizen does.

Again..a twisted concept of the constitution is and exactly what it does.

And that's probably because your historical context is lacking.

Which is part of the problem of relying on a document that is close to three hundred years old to provide guidance in the governance of a modern society.

The government is made up of private citizens. Which is part of the rationale for arming them. They were meant to be what was defending the nation against invasion and insurrection.

The Continental Congress had no intention of keeping a federally controlled professional army, permanent.

PART of the rationale. The rest of it is the right to defend oneself and one's family and property from the criminal acts of another.

You're not getting the guns, so you might as well get used to the idea.

You are sort of right.

But this is where the notion of defending it from "government" comes in.

The folks that wrote the Constitution weren't to far away from remembering when an oppressive monarch could capriciously take away one's land and property. And although there are no explicit rules in the constitution regarding that event, there are many clauses protecting one's private property from the government.

Those things were necessary, by the way, since many of the founders did not want to trade one monarch for another.

 

[Ernie S.]

It is confusing to intelligent people.

It is only confusing to people who want to find a way around "shall not be infringed".