NationStates

Posted: **Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:30 pm**

Grave_n_idle wrote:The Second Amendment grants a freedom to the states. It restricts Congress from infringing on the rights of states to 'stock' their militias.

Thus, it is not out of place, and being 'imperative' doesn't make it a 'restriction' on the states.

Second Amendment wrote:“ 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. ”

Of course! How could I have missed that this referred to the states' rights and not the people's.

Posted: **Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:30 pm**

Galloism wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:
Galloism wrote:Here you implied the 2nd amendment was imperative, otherwise you would not have drawn an imperative example, and then criticized mine for not being imperative as why it fails as regards the 2nd amendment. Anything that impels the population to take an action is a restriction. It may be a justified restriction, but it's still a restriction.

Stop lying.

'Lying' is a strong word to apply for not understanding what I wrote.

The Second Amendment grants a freedom to the states. It restricts Congress from infringing on the rights of states to 'stock' their militias.

Thus, it is not out of place, and being 'imperative' doesn't make it a 'restriction' on the states.

So wait, the framers meant to write "The States" (a phrase often used in the constitution) but screwed up and wrote "The People"?

No. States have no hands. They can't bear arms.

Posted: **Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:52 pm**

Grave_n_idle wrote:No. States have no hands. They can't bear arms.

This is the most circular and ridiculous line of reasoning I've ever seen.

The framers of the constitution, who used the term "the People" extensively in many places, such as the following:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"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."

really meant something completely different in the 2nd amendment than in every other instance in the Constitution where the phrase is used. In fact, you argue that only the rights of the people whom the state chooses are protected. If you expect me to buy this, just because GnI says so, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Unless of course, you think freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of press... that's really talking only about the people whom the states choose should get those rights, because after all, it uses the same group - "the people." If that's your position... I'm frightened and hope you never go into politics.

Posted: **Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:59 pm**

Galloism wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:No. States have no hands. They can't bear arms.

This is the most circular and ridiculous line of reasoning I've ever seen.

The framers of the constitution, who used the term "the People" extensively in many places, such as the following:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"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."

really meant something completely different in the 2nd amendment than in every other instance in the Constitution where the phrase is used. In fact, you argue that only the rights of the people whom the state chooses are protected. If you expect me to buy this, just because GnI says so, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Unless of course, you think freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of press... that's really talking only about the people whom the states choose should get those rights, because after all, it uses the same group - "the people."

Or a large bribe.

I've already bribed Galloism with 34 tacos. Beat that.

Posted: **Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:02 pm**

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:
Gun Manufacturers wrote:
greed and death wrote:I see you lack a fire arm. Scotus rules you are to be shipped to Mexico.

IIRC, LG's wife is a cop, so there is a firearm in the house. Also IIRC, LG knows Clown Fu.

True enough, My big floppy shoes are a registered lethal weapon in 49 states and the District of Columbia. I never bothered with Rhode Island.

You really should. I heard the Town of Rhode Island can be tough, when it wants to. :rofl:

Posted: **Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:06 pm**

I am all for the right to bear arms. However, as previously mentioned, the mentally challenged, people with violent history, and children should not be allowed to exercise these rights.

It is very disappointing (at least to me) that a good number of people out there would readily yield this crucial right for the sake of "security". Their logic is very similar to discarding an entire basket of apples because of a few rotten ones. The sound logic would be to weed out the bad ones and keep the good ones. You don't have to throw it all away. The same principle should also apply to the right to bear arms and many other things in life.

I wholeheartedly believe that the right to bear arms (while it is still legal) would be the last line of defense against government tyranny. I live in the USA, and with the way things are going, I think this should be a very important right for us to continue to support and cherish. It's quite disturbing when it's now legal for the government to pull someone aside, and for whatever reason, detain them without a reasonable justification, indefinitely. My friends, we are knocking on the threshold of TYRANNY.

Friends, we must remember. The freedom that we now enjoy were bought with the blood of our brothers and sisters who died believing in self-determination, the freedom to worship God in the way their conscience dictates, and from there, all other rights followed. ALL have in them the principles of righteousness. Why should we do away with these things? Look at where we are now by deviating from it's principles. Once we give them up, we may have to shed blood to get it back!

The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they drafted the constitution. It was meant to "bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak" (Hammurabi).

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty" -Thomas Jefferson

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" -Benjamin Franklin

Posted: **Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:09 pm**

"According to a 1983 National Institute of Justice-funded study by James D. Wright, Peter H. Rossi, and Kathleen Daly, about one percent of privately owned firearms are involved in criminal activity, suggesting that eliminating 99 percent of the nation's guns would not ameliorate crime."

In fact, wouldn't it just make it easier for the bad one percent to use their guns to great advantage?

I have read that gun crimes are more prevalent in Australia and New Zealand, despite strict gun control, than they are in the US. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1724272/posts

Posted: **Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:44 pm**

Madison’s very organization shows the right to arms was seen as an individual right and not as militia-related. Madison’s draft did not take the format with which we are today familiar, that of a numbered list of amendments following the Constitution. Rather, his draft designated where, within the Constitution, each provision was to be inserted. 1 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 451-52. For example, his provisions relating to the House of Representatives were to be inserted in Article I, Section 2. An unsuccessful proposal to forbid States to infringe the rights of conscience was to be inserted in Article I, Section 10, alongside its other “Restrictions Upon Powers of States.” Provisions relating to jury trial, grand juries, and appeals were to be placed in Article III. Thus, if Madison had seen the future Second Amendment as militia-related, he would have designated its place next to the Militia Clauses in Article I, Section 8. Instead Madison grouped it with freedom of speech, press, assembly and other individual rights, and designated their place in Article I, Section 9, right after “No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.” Madison’s arrangement is compelling evidence that he did not view the right to arms as a guarantee relating to States and militias; its militia reference was explanation, not an operative part of its guarantee. See LEONARD W. LEVY, ORIGINS at 145; Robert E. Shalhope, The Armed Citizen in the Early Republic, 49 LAW & CONTEMP. PROB. 125, 135 (1986).

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parke ... ndment.pdf, Pages 41-42

I'm sure you can look up this by yourself, but if this doesn't make clear that the Second Amendment is an individual right as opposed to a collective right, then you really can't be reasoned with. However, if you believe the Second Amendment should be removed...let's keep arguing then.

Posted: **Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:50 pm**

Malibus wrote:
Madison’s very organization shows the right to arms was seen as an individual right and not as militia-related. Madison’s draft did not take the format with which we are today familiar, that of a numbered list of amendments following the Constitution. Rather, his draft designated where, within the Constitution, each provision was to be inserted. 1 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 451-52. For example, his provisions relating to the House of Representatives were to be inserted in Article I, Section 2. An unsuccessful proposal to forbid States to infringe the rights of conscience was to be inserted in Article I, Section 10, alongside its other “Restrictions Upon Powers of States.” Provisions relating to jury trial, grand juries, and appeals were to be placed in Article III. Thus, if Madison had seen the future Second Amendment as militia-related, he would have designated its place next to the Militia Clauses in Article I, Section 8. Instead Madison grouped it with freedom of speech, press, assembly and other individual rights, and designated their place in Article I, Section 9, right after “No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.” Madison’s arrangement is compelling evidence that he did not view the right to arms as a guarantee relating to States and militias; its militia reference was explanation, not an operative part of its guarantee. See LEONARD W. LEVY, ORIGINS at 145; Robert E. Shalhope, The Armed Citizen in the Early Republic, 49 LAW & CONTEMP. PROB. 125, 135 (1986).

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parke ... ndment.pdf, Pages 41-42

I'm sure you can look up this by yourself, but if this doesn't make clear that the Second Amendment is an individual right as opposed to a collective right, then you really can't be reasoned with. However, if you believe the Second Amendment should be removed...let's keep arguing then.

Both, natural-born and naturalized citizens, have the moral and constitutional obligations to defend the constitution from threats within and without, and because of this obligation, wouldn't it implicate that ALL citizens should bear the responsibilities of an armed militia?

How would the people do this without the right to bear arms? Surely, we can't go fighting with rocks or even knives.

I know the wording of the document might not be clear, but the spirit of it is! This is where many folks stumble in confusion when it comes to discerning the context and principles of the constitution.

Posted: **Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:24 pm**

Malibus wrote:
Madison’s very organization shows the right to arms was seen as an individual right and not as militia-related. Madison’s draft did not take the format with which we are today familiar, that of a numbered list of amendments following the Constitution. Rather, his draft designated where, within the Constitution, each provision was to be inserted. 1 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 451-52. For example, his provisions relating to the House of Representatives were to be inserted in Article I, Section 2. An unsuccessful proposal to forbid States to infringe the rights of conscience was to be inserted in Article I, Section 10, alongside its other “Restrictions Upon Powers of States.” Provisions relating to jury trial, grand juries, and appeals were to be placed in Article III. Thus, if Madison had seen the future Second Amendment as militia-related, he would have designated its place next to the Militia Clauses in Article I, Section 8. Instead Madison grouped it with freedom of speech, press, assembly and other individual rights, and designated their place in Article I, Section 9, right after “No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.” Madison’s arrangement is compelling evidence that he did not view the right to arms as a guarantee relating to States and militias; its militia reference was explanation, not an operative part of its guarantee. See LEONARD W. LEVY, ORIGINS at 145; Robert E. Shalhope, The Armed Citizen in the Early Republic, 49 LAW & CONTEMP. PROB. 125, 135 (1986).

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parke ... ndment.pdf, Pages 41-42

I'm sure you can look up this by yourself, but if this doesn't make clear that the Second Amendment is an individual right as opposed to a collective right, then you really can't be reasoned with. However, if you believe the Second Amendment should be removed...let's keep arguing then.

An intersting text, that ingores the fact that the 'militia' items it talks about are located where they are because of what they are relating to. If he grouped it with, for example freedom of the press (which isn't exactly an 'individual' right), it would be because of it's nature, and it's lack of fitting in the context established in Articel 1, section 8.

Posted: **Mon Jul 06, 2009 5:28 am**

Grave_n_idle wrote:An intersting text, that ingores the fact that the 'militia' items it talks about are located where they are because of what they are relating to. If he grouped it with, for example freedom of the press (which isn't exactly an 'individual' right), it would be because of it's nature, and it's lack of fitting in the context established in Articel 1, section 8.

According to that text, at the time there were many people afraid of the new Republic having a standing army; an early version of the 2nd Amendment mentioned the State specifically but was overwhelmingly voted out. The Federalists argued that the Amendment wasn't needed, as the populace would be armed, but the Anti-Federalists (rightly so) saw there was nothing in the Constitution stopping Congress from disarming the people. Based on contemporary authors, what we have left of the Congressional proceedings of that time, and through the Federalist papers, as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights, it is a far stretch to put the Right to Bare Arms as anything but an individual right.

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the freedom of a State, the right of the People to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed."

The right of the People, PEOPLE, not State, not Militia, but People. The Militia Act of 1792 required all men of the militia to have a rifle; the exceptions within the bill were for being excepted from militia training, not a way to get out of the militia. SCOTUS, in Heller, define the militia as "every able-bodied man between the ages of 18 and 45," so even if, by a warped and stretched reading of the Second Amendment, only the Militia needs guns, then you need to provide guns for every able-bodied, nonfelon man between 18-45 so your militia is well-regulated, to ensure the freedom of your State, you see.

I'm sure you know this, but I feel like reiterating it: the Bill of Rights is a list of rights considered so obvious by the Federalist that they not even need listing. Where does the original Constitution say the Government can create a "Church of the United States," for instance? Where does it say the Government can force me to accept a soldier into my house and feed him three squares a day? The Constitution grants no power specifically to the Federal Government to do such things, yet because it does not explicitly say the Federal Government can't, there are people who would try their damnedest to do it. The Bill of Rights is nothing more than a list of "obvious" rights an American citizen has, each of them individual rights, each as important as the previous. Any breach of the Bill of Rights is a grievous overstep of the boundaries of Government power, and should be treated as such, even if you disagree with the specific right being breached.

Posted: **Mon Jul 06, 2009 5:32 am**

Grave_n_idle wrote:No. States have no hands. They can't bear arms.

GnI, this is the first time a post of yours makes me want to do this: :palm:

.

Posted: **Mon Jul 06, 2009 5:46 am**

On the subject of the original post, no I do not think everyone has the right to bear arms. Look at Britain we have strict gun control and we are fine.

Posted: **Mon Jul 06, 2009 5:49 am**

Ledarre wrote:On the subject of the original post, no I do not think everyone has the right to bear arms. Look at Britain we have strict gun control and we are fine.

He should have addressed it as Every American. there are reasons I wouldn't live in the UK. Gun restrictions being one of the big ones.

Posted: **Mon Jul 06, 2009 6:11 am**

greed and death wrote:
Ledarre wrote:On the subject of the original post, no I do not think everyone has the right to bear arms. Look at Britain we have strict gun control and we are fine.

He should have addressed it as Every American. there are reasons I wouldn't live in the UK. Gun restrictions being one of the big ones.

interesting, no gun control is one of the reasons I would not live in America, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Posted: **Mon Jul 06, 2009 6:11 am**

Ledarre wrote:
greed and death wrote:
Ledarre wrote:On the subject of the original post, no I do not think everyone has the right to bear arms. Look at Britain we have strict gun control and we are fine.

He should have addressed it as Every American. there are reasons I wouldn't live in the UK. Gun restrictions being one of the big ones.

interesting, no gun control is one of the reasons I would not live in America, we will just have to agree to disagree.

We have really good gun control actually.

Without good gun control, you can't group your shots.

Posted: **Mon Jul 06, 2009 6:14 am**

Galloism wrote:We have really good gun control actually.

Without good gun control, you can't group your shots.

Posted: **Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:17 am**

*sigh*

I know I am often guilty of this myself, but I must admit it gets pretty amusing when people (1) treat someone with a reasonable (if wrong) point of view as if they are entirely insane and (2) make foolish arguments in support of what is otherwise a good position.

Until SCOTUS's recent decision in Heller (which was a hotly contested 5-4 opinion), the overwhelming (nigh absolute) weight of authority was that the Second Amendment did NOT protect an individual right to possess or own firearms, but rather protected a collective right of states to have armed militias. Although it is a close call, I agree with the Heller majority that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to possess or own firearms in a civilian context. But given the number of learned judges that have held differently over many scores of years, GnI's viewpoint is not wholly ridiculous and you are insulting your own intelligence by treating it as if it were.

I'm not wading into all the back-and-forth, but one oft-repeated argument is particularly silly. It matters not whether some Congressional statute broadly defines "militia." If the Second Amendment preserves a collective right of states to armed militias, then it doesn't protect an individual right to bear arms. Congress can no more change that by statute than they could suddenly make laws against murder unconstitutional by defining homicide as "free speech."

I know this is true of many topics on NSG and of my own discussions of those topics, but the worn-out, ill-conceived positions that get trotted out on both extreme sides of the Second Amendment/gun control debate are particularly absurd. Heller has it right. There is a constitutional right to bear arms, but that right is not absolute in any sense of the word.

NationStates

The Second Amendment

Re: The Second Amendment

Re: The Second Amendment

Re: The Second Amendment

Re: The Second Amendment

Re: The Second Amendment

Re: The Second Amendment

Re: The Second Amendment

Re: The Second Amendment

Re: The Second Amendment

Re: The Second Amendment

Re: The Second Amendment

Re: The Second Amendment

Re: The Second Amendment

Re: The Second Amendment

Re: The Second Amendment

Re: The Second Amendment

Re: The Second Amendment

Re: The Second Amendment