Why do the God-haters persist?

[Boss]

I'm curious, do you think the Supreme Court has the responsibility to determine what constitutes 'arms' in the case of the second amendment?

If not, how should that be determined?

In my view, the SCOTUS does not have this authority. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The amendment does not stipulate the right may be infringed by a court ruling at future undisclosed date.

I know what you are getting at here... should we have the "right to bear NUKES then?" And the answer is, no. Studying the Federalist Papers and arguments presented by John Locke and others, the "right" we retain to bear arms is for our defense. We have a right to be secure in our property and life, and we do not have the right to indiscriminately harm others. Machine guns, chemical weapons, anti-tank missiles, nukes... are weapons which have the capacity to kill indiscriminately, not merely "defend" our property and life.

Aren't you merely interpreting the amendment yourself here?

My point isn't simply that arms can be used to describe a whole host of things not covered by the second according to SCOTUS. The point is that almost any statement, no matter how clear it may seem, can contain some ambiguity; this is especially true with the passage of time, the rise of new technology, changes in language, etc.

So who determines what, exactly, any amendment actually means? Clearly you have your own opinion about what constitutes arms in the second. Just as clearly that opinion is not shared universally. So who has the final say?

And wow have we ranged far afield!

I'm interpreting the amendment on the basis of what the founding fathers said in the Federalist Papers, which is the outline for the amendment itself. The court is allowed to look at the Federalist Papers and make rulings based on what they prescribe. They are not allowed to arbitrarily say "we think this is what it should mean." Or, as Justice Kennedy did a few years ago and "look to international law" to determine what the Constitution means.

I understand your point, but there is a very fine line between judicial activism and earnestly ruling based on the founding intent. In my opinion, we crossed that line a long time ago.

The Constitution is anything but ambiguous, if you juxtapose it with the body of Federalist Papers. Each one of the Bill of Rights were heavily debated for months, proponents and opponents on each side made their cases and ironed out the arguments. This wasn't just some collective group-think where everyone agreed. So in every case, there is ample documentation to determine exactly what was intended and meant by every single word. SCOTUS is supposed to rule on that basis alone, not what Justices WISH were the case. If it's not in the Constitution or intended by the founders, the court is supposed to rule that way and leave the rest to the legislative branch and the people. If something is not Constitutional and the people want it to be, they have a process by which they can amend the Constitution.

 

[Boss]

And you don't have the right to bear arms without one.

Uhm yes I do.

Why does the COTUS say anything about a militia, then?
I thought you were all for what is written.

Because the right of the citizenry to bear arms is for the defense of freedom and liberty. It is a rationale and not a precursor. The thinking of Madison and others was, if we should come under attack, the several state militias would be more formidable than a single national army. Or, in the event a hostile takeover of federal government happened (a coup) then mobilized state militias could overwhelm the federalized arsenal.

There is no "requirement" of membership in any state militia to bear arms. In fact, there were very specific formulations made as to the estimated size of militias to ratio of population. Had the intent be to ONLY arm militia members, the right to bear arms would have only been extended to that specified number and no more. The right is not to be infringed regardless of militia status. In fact, Samuel Adams argued and lost a bid to REQUIRE every citizen to be armed.

 

[MrMax]

Uhm yes I do.

Why does the COTUS say anything about a militia, then?
I thought you were all for what is written.

Because the right of the citizenry to bear arms is for the defense of freedom and liberty. It is a rationale and not a precursor. The thinking of Madison and others was, if we should come under attack, the several state militias would be more formidable than a single national army. Or, in the event a hostile takeover of federal government happened (a coup) then mobilized state militias could overwhelm the federalized arsenal.

There is no "requirement" of membership in any state militia to bear arms. In fact, there were very specific formulations made as to the estimated size of militias to ratio of population. Had the intent be to ONLY arm militia members, the right to bear arms would have only been extended to that specified number and no more. The right is not to be infringed regardless of militia status. In fact, Samuel Adams argued and lost a bid to REQUIRE every citizen to be armed.

The 2nd Amendment has been violated by the government by not letting you own nukes, tanks and other arms, to defend yourselves against a tyrannical government, which has you out-gunned right now. So arguing about respecting something that already is not being respected is a moot argument.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Uhm yes I do.

Why does the COTUS say anything about a militia, then?
I thought you were all for what is written.

Because the right of the citizenry to bear arms is for the defense of freedom and liberty. It is a rationale and not a precursor. The thinking of Madison and others was, if we should come under attack, the several state militias would be more formidable than a single national army. Or, in the event a hostile takeover of federal government happened (a coup) then mobilized state militias could overwhelm the federalized arsenal.

There is no "requirement" of membership in any state militia to bear arms. In fact, there were very specific formulations made as to the estimated size of militias to ratio of population. Had the intent be to ONLY arm militia members, the right to bear arms would have only been extended to that specified number and no more. The right is not to be infringed regardless of militia status. In fact, Samuel Adams argued and lost a bid to REQUIRE every citizen to be armed.

So it is a "rationale" or an example of the amendments usefulness?
Can you show other parts of the COTUS that give this kind of example?

 

[BreezeWood]

Funny... I don't see this caveat in the 2nd Amendment.

A well regulated Militia ... is a caveat the extrapolation is your own.

.

And what "well regulated militia" is restricted to "lever or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine at 6 rounds or less capacity?" ...Switzerland?

in my opinion, a well regulated one (militia), the same as the Arms available to its citizenry.


we know Bossy, every Ukrainian should have an AK47 fully automatic rifle because they like you need unlimited firepower to defend themselves.

.

 

[Montrovant]

In my view, the SCOTUS does not have this authority. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The amendment does not stipulate the right may be infringed by a court ruling at future undisclosed date.

I know what you are getting at here... should we have the "right to bear NUKES then?" And the answer is, no. Studying the Federalist Papers and arguments presented by John Locke and others, the "right" we retain to bear arms is for our defense. We have a right to be secure in our property and life, and we do not have the right to indiscriminately harm others. Machine guns, chemical weapons, anti-tank missiles, nukes... are weapons which have the capacity to kill indiscriminately, not merely "defend" our property and life.

Aren't you merely interpreting the amendment yourself here?

My point isn't simply that arms can be used to describe a whole host of things not covered by the second according to SCOTUS. The point is that almost any statement, no matter how clear it may seem, can contain some ambiguity; this is especially true with the passage of time, the rise of new technology, changes in language, etc.

So who determines what, exactly, any amendment actually means? Clearly you have your own opinion about what constitutes arms in the second. Just as clearly that opinion is not shared universally. So who has the final say?

And wow have we ranged far afield!

I'm interpreting the amendment on the basis of what the founding fathers said in the Federalist Papers, which is the outline for the amendment itself. The court is allowed to look at the Federalist Papers and make rulings based on what they prescribe. They are not allowed to arbitrarily say "we think this is what it should mean." Or, as Justice Kennedy did a few years ago and "look to international law" to determine what the Constitution means.

I understand your point, but there is a very fine line between judicial activism and earnestly ruling based on the founding intent. In my opinion, we crossed that line a long time ago.

The Constitution is anything but ambiguous, if you juxtapose it with the body of Federalist Papers. Each one of the Bill of Rights were heavily debated for months, proponents and opponents on each side made their cases and ironed out the arguments. This wasn't just some collective group-think where everyone agreed. So in every case, there is ample documentation to determine exactly what was intended and meant by every single word. SCOTUS is supposed to rule on that basis alone, not what Justices WISH were the case. If it's not in the Constitution or intended by the founders, the court is supposed to rule that way and leave the rest to the legislative branch and the people. If something is not Constitutional and the people want it to be, they have a process by which they can amend the Constitution.

I'm not going to argue the infallibility or even correctness of the court. I'll even agree that it would be good to see the amendment process used more rather than so many judgements left to court decisions.

However, the SCOTUS is the final judge on issues of constitutionality. If people believe they have gone beyond the bounds of their powers in interpreting amendments, that is yet another time where using the constitutional amendment process would be appropriate. In the case of the second, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to that amendment being reworded, at the least, rather than trying to figure out what the founders' intent would be if they were exposed to modern weapons technology.

 

[Boss]

Why does the COTUS say anything about a militia, then?
I thought you were all for what is written.

Because the right of the citizenry to bear arms is for the defense of freedom and liberty. It is a rationale and not a precursor. The thinking of Madison and others was, if we should come under attack, the several state militias would be more formidable than a single national army. Or, in the event a hostile takeover of federal government happened (a coup) then mobilized state militias could overwhelm the federalized arsenal.

There is no "requirement" of membership in any state militia to bear arms. In fact, there were very specific formulations made as to the estimated size of militias to ratio of population. Had the intent be to ONLY arm militia members, the right to bear arms would have only been extended to that specified number and no more. The right is not to be infringed regardless of militia status. In fact, Samuel Adams argued and lost a bid to REQUIRE every citizen to be armed.

So it is a "rationale" or an example of the amendments usefulness?
Can you show other parts of the COTUS that give this kind of example?

Rationale and example are certainly not synonyms. They are not defining "usefulness" of an inalienable right. Whether other parts are presented similarly is not relevant.

Grow a brain, read the Federalist Papers.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Because the right of the citizenry to bear arms is for the defense of freedom and liberty. It is a rationale and not a precursor. The thinking of Madison and others was, if we should come under attack, the several state militias would be more formidable than a single national army. Or, in the event a hostile takeover of federal government happened (a coup) then mobilized state militias could overwhelm the federalized arsenal.

There is no "requirement" of membership in any state militia to bear arms. In fact, there were very specific formulations made as to the estimated size of militias to ratio of population. Had the intent be to ONLY arm militia members, the right to bear arms would have only been extended to that specified number and no more. The right is not to be infringed regardless of militia status. In fact, Samuel Adams argued and lost a bid to REQUIRE every citizen to be armed.

So it is a "rationale" or an example of the amendments usefulness?
Can you show other parts of the COTUS that give this kind of example?

Rationale and example are certainly not synonyms. They are not defining "usefulness" of an inalienable right. Whether other parts are presented similarly is not relevant.

Grow a brain, read the Federalist Papers.

It's very relevant.
If the practice of providing the rationale or example is non-existent elsewhere in the COTUS it sort of undermines your argument.
The Federalist Papers are not U.S. law.

 

[Boss]

Why does the COTUS say anything about a militia, then?
I thought you were all for what is written.

Because the right of the citizenry to bear arms is for the defense of freedom and liberty. It is a rationale and not a precursor. The thinking of Madison and others was, if we should come under attack, the several state militias would be more formidable than a single national army. Or, in the event a hostile takeover of federal government happened (a coup) then mobilized state militias could overwhelm the federalized arsenal.

There is no "requirement" of membership in any state militia to bear arms. In fact, there were very specific formulations made as to the estimated size of militias to ratio of population. Had the intent be to ONLY arm militia members, the right to bear arms would have only been extended to that specified number and no more. The right is not to be infringed regardless of militia status. In fact, Samuel Adams argued and lost a bid to REQUIRE every citizen to be armed.

The 2nd Amendment has been violated by the government by not letting you own nukes, tanks and other arms, to defend yourselves against a tyrannical government, which has you out-gunned right now. So arguing about respecting something that already is not being respected is a moot argument.

I've addressed this meme already. If you'll read the Federalist Papers, the argument made for our right to bear arms is defense of liberty and freedom, to be secure in property and life. You do not have the right to kill indiscriminately. Nukes, etc. kill indiscriminately.

On the question of being outgunned... Do you know of any army with 250 million armed soldiers? Yep, you're gonna have to nuke the entire place rendering it uninhabitable... kinda defeats the purpose. Also, there is an estimated 480,000 machine guns registered in the US.

 

[Boss]

It's very relevant.

Nope. It's not.

If the practice of providing the rationale or example is non-existent elsewhere in the COTUS it sort of undermines your argument.

Didn't say it was non-existent, said it was irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it's elsewhere, unless elsewhere they are talking about our inalienable right to bear arms.

The Federalist Papers are not U.S. law.

Didn't say they were. Legal briefs which outline civil and criminal code are also not U.S. law. There is a difference between what is the law and what is the outline for the law. This is why we have lawyers and constitutional scholars, and don't depend on idiots who frequent message boards.

 

[orogenicman]

Because the right of the citizenry to bear arms is for the defense of freedom and liberty. It is a rationale and not a precursor. The thinking of Madison and others was, if we should come under attack, the several state militias would be more formidable than a single national army. Or, in the event a hostile takeover of federal government happened (a coup) then mobilized state militias could overwhelm the federalized arsenal.

There is no "requirement" of membership in any state militia to bear arms. In fact, there were very specific formulations made as to the estimated size of militias to ratio of population. Had the intent be to ONLY arm militia members, the right to bear arms would have only been extended to that specified number and no more. The right is not to be infringed regardless of militia status. In fact, Samuel Adams argued and lost a bid to REQUIRE every citizen to be armed.

The 2nd Amendment has been violated by the government by not letting you own nukes, tanks and other arms, to defend yourselves against a tyrannical government, which has you out-gunned right now. So arguing about respecting something that already is not being respected is a moot argument.

I've addressed this meme already. If you'll read the Federalist Papers, the argument made for our right to bear arms is defense of liberty and freedom, to be secure in property and life. You do not have the right to kill indiscriminately. Nukes, etc. kill indiscriminately.

On the question of being outgunned... Do you know of any army with 250 million armed soldiers? Yep, you're gonna have to nuke the entire place rendering it uninhabitable... kinda defeats the purpose. Also, there is an estimated 480,000 machine guns registered in the US.

Yeah, well, someone please explain to me why any private citizen needs a machine gun.

 

[Boss]

However, the SCOTUS is the final judge on issues of constitutionality.

No, they're not. We The People are the final judge. Sorry!

 

[Boss]

Yeah, well, someone please explain to me why any private citizen needs a machine gun.

So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become.

 

[orogenicman]

Yeah, well, someone please explain to me why any private citizen needs a machine gun.

So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become.

Not buying it. That is why we have law enforcement, and the military. I submit that anyone who thinks that they need to a machine gun in order to be our saviors is the real threat. And for the record, no one asked me if I needed saving.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Yeah, well, someone please explain to me why any private citizen needs a machine gun.

So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become.

You just made the case for the repeal of the amendment.
I'm not suggesting that mind you.
There are very few unhinged zealots like yourself that would be a threat, and you could easily be taken care of if necessary.

 

[thebrucebeat]

However, the SCOTUS is the final judge on issues of constitutionality.

No, they're not. We The People are the final judge. Sorry!

LOL!!!
We don't even have a direct vote for president.

 

[Boss]

Yeah, well, someone please explain to me why any private citizen needs a machine gun.

So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become.

Not buying it. That is why we have law enforcement, and the military. I submit that anyone who thinks that they need to a machine gun in order to be our saviors is the real threat. And for the record, no one asked me if I needed saving.

Don't care what you buy, to be honest.

For the record, my viewpoint regarding arguments made by John Locke and others in the Federalist Papers, gives the government limited power to restrict ownership of certain kinds of weaponry, such as machine guns, bombs, missiles, chemical and biological weapons and nukes. The key is the weapon's capacity to kill indiscriminately. We do not have that constitutional right as individuals.

That said, state militias should retain the right to arm themselves in any way the government is able to arm itself. One of the purposes of a state militia is to repel a possible rogue federal government. Hard to do that with pea shooters and pellet guns.

 

[Boss]

Yeah, well, someone please explain to me why any private citizen needs a machine gun.

So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become.

You just made the case for the repeal of the amendment.
I'm not suggesting that mind you.
There are very few unhinged zealots like yourself that would be a threat, and you could easily be taken care of if necessary.

Sorry that you are retarded and can't seem to read a paragraph without misconstruing context. I am not an "unhinged zealot" and pose no threat to freedom and liberty.

 

[Boss]

However, the SCOTUS is the final judge on issues of constitutionality.

No, they're not. We The People are the final judge. Sorry!

LOL!!!
We don't even have a direct vote for president.

We're not supposed to. It's called "representative democracy."

This has nothing to do with how amendments are ratified. It's a totally different process than we use to elect a president. You would realize this if you weren't so retarded.

 

[thebrucebeat]

So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become.

You just made the case for the repeal of the amendment.
I'm not suggesting that mind you.
There are very few unhinged zealots like yourself that would be a threat, and you could easily be taken care of if necessary.

Sorry that you are retarded and can't seem to read a paragraph without misconstruing context. I am not an "unhinged zealot" and pose no threat to freedom and liberty.

You're the only one on here advocating gunning down their fellow citizens.