GeorgiaDon 340 #51 March 7, 2012 QuoteTry this: "Well stocked libraries, being necessary to the maintenance of an educated electorate, the right of the People to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Would you interpret this phrase to mean that only libraries should be allowed to own books? Nope, clearly that isn't the meaning of the phrase. But, I also wouldn't interpret it to say the People should only be allowed to own paperbacks, or only libraries should be allowed to own encyclopedias. I'm guessing you wouldn't read it that way either. Which brings us back to the problem that since there is no controlling role of participation in a militia in determining the scope of 2nd amendment rights, the Militia Act is irrelevant in determining the limits to the types of arms that are covered. In that case, logic and the plain language of the 2nd dictates that any and all arms should be available to the People, just as any book that is available to a library should also be available for private ownership. Lets agree to stipulate that firearms that can be carried by an individual are included in 2nd amendment rights. I hope we can also agree that tactical nukes should be excluded, on the grounds that there is no way to use them for defense without causing excessive collateral damage, and probably destroying the people/property one is trying to protect. Lets also take chemical and biological weapons off the table as well, on the same grounds and also because the government has renounced use of such weapons by the military. That leaves a lot of territory in between. If fear of guns on the part of gun-o-phobes is not a basis for restricting 2nd amendment rights to gun possession, is fear of what someone "might" do sufficient reason to ban private possession of Stinger missiles? Why are missile-o-phobes coddled, while gun-o-phobes are ridiculed? If we admit that the possibility of damage inflicted on innocents is sufficient reason to restrict 2nd amendment rights when it comes to law-abiding non-nutter US citizens who just think it would be a great idea to have a Stinger or two (in case black helicopters full of blue helmets should appear one day), haven't we entered on a slippery slope that could lead all the way back to gun bans? Isn't a right a right? Now personally I think it would be a bad idea to have such weapons sold at the local flea market. I do think it would be a very bad idea to have weapons whose only useful function is to bring down aircraft sold to anybody who can show they don't have any felonies on their record, or who haven't been certified a nutter by the courts. I guess I don't trust people that much. Think of those folks who flood city hall with complaints of noisy jump planes, trying to get the DZ closed. They might not just complain, or moon the plane, if they could easily buy a Stinger. But when I look at the 2nd amendment, I can find no comfort in a clear line that would limit the right to just guns. It won't surprise me if sooner or later some militia group or other citizen goes to court to challenge laws against private ownership of military type weapons, and I wouldn't be totally shocked if they prevailed. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #52 March 7, 2012 QuoteSo, what you're saying then is . . . people outside that group have no Constitutional right to own a gun. So, no men under 17 or over 45 or any women unless they belong to the National Guard. It's now obvious you've never read the linguistic analysis of the 2nd any of the several times I've posted it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #53 March 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo, what you're saying then is . . . people outside that group have no Constitutional right to own a gun. So, no men under 17 or over 45 or any women unless they belong to the National Guard. It's now obvious you've never read the linguistic analysis of the 2nd any of the several times I've posted it. It's obvious you've never understood no other part of the Constitution written in that time period requires linguistic gymnastics to be "properly" understood. No other part of the Constitution written in that time period requires some sort of prior knowledge and support documents not found in the Constitution itself, yet, for some reason, if you "really" want to understand what the Second Amendment was about, oh, you have to read this or that specific part of the Federalist Papers which support it while completely ignoring the dissenting opinions found in other parts of the Federalist Papers. Why is that?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #54 March 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo, what you're saying then is . . . people outside that group have no Constitutional right to own a gun. So, no men under 17 or over 45 or any women unless they belong to the National Guard. It's now obvious you've never read the linguistic analysis of the 2nd any of the several times I've posted it. It's obvious you've never understood no other part of the Constitution written in that time period requires linguistic gymnastics to be "properly" understood. Why is that? Any 'linguistic gymnastics' are on the side of the antis, for trying to claim that the 'people' referenced in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments are individuals, but not in the case of the 2nd.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #55 March 7, 2012 Bah. Like the pro-gun people have never parsed a comma. Get real. http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.htmlquade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #56 March 7, 2012 QuoteBah. Like the pro-gun people have never parsed a comma. Get real. http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html Given the linguistic analysis by the author of American Usage and Style, the constitutions of the various states written in the same time period and the writings of the founders themselves, anyone arguing that the right is not an individual one is being deliberately obtuse.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #57 March 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteBah. Like the pro-gun people have never parsed a comma. Get real. http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html Given the linguistic analysis by the author of American Usage and Style, the constitutions of the various states written in the same time period and the writings of the founders themselves, anyone arguing that the right is not an individual one is being deliberately obtuse. OR . . . entirely accurate . . . depending on opinion. While "American Usage and Style" is no doubt a fine book, the author, nor the book itself, is hardly the final nor legal authority in this matter. Which is my point. Linguistic gymnastics (and your "appeal to authority" debate fallacy now.) Something not really required of the other parts of the Constitution written at the time.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #58 March 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteBah. Like the pro-gun people have never parsed a comma. Get real. http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html Given the linguistic analysis by the author of American Usage and Style, the constitutions of the various states written in the same time period and the writings of the founders themselves, anyone arguing that the right is not an individual one is being deliberately obtuse. OR . . . entirely accurate . . . depending on opinion. While "American Usage and Style" is no doubt a fine book, the author nor the book itself is hardly the final nor legal authority in this matter. He *is* (or was) a subject matter expert in linguistics, which is applicable to the discussion of the second given the linguistic gymnastics from the left on the subject. QuoteWhich is my point. Linguistic gymnastics (and your "appeal to authority" debate fallacy now.) Something not really required of the other parts of the Constitution written at the time. No, the 'linguistic gymnastics' are your own creation, since you're claiming that 'the people' mentioned in the 2nd is somehow different than 'the people' mentioned in all the other amendments.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #59 March 7, 2012 Nonsense. Utter nonsense. You keep repeating it as if doing so makes it more valid. It's not.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #60 March 7, 2012 QuoteNonsense. Utter nonsense. Yes, the 'collective right' *IS* utter nonsense, I agree. QuoteYou keep repeating it as if doing so makes it more valid. It's not. So prove me wrong. I've got the writings of the founders, the Constitution itself, the other state constitutions from the same time and Supreme court cases. What do *you* have?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #61 March 7, 2012 QuoteSo prove me wrong. I've got the writings of the founders, the Constitution itself, the other state constitutions from the same time and Supreme court cases. What do *you* have? The fact you feel the need to arm yourself with anything other than the actual words written on the parchment itself. How can you not see this point considering I just mentioned it and it is in fact what we've been talking about? Are you being intentionally obtuse? It's getting late. Nighty, night Mike. Sweet dreams. Maybe it will all come clear if you sleep on it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #62 March 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo prove me wrong. I've got the writings of the founders, the Constitution itself, the other state constitutions from the same time and Supreme court cases. What do *you* have? The fact you feel the need to arm yourself with anything other than the actual words written on the parchment itself. How can you not see this point considering I just mentioned it and it is in fact what we've been talking about? Are you being intentionally obtuse? Someone that STILL believes that the right only applies to a militia in the face of all that evidence to the contrary is the one that is being intentionally obtuse, not me. I need to arm myself with those other writings because of people who are unable to understand the point directly below: From the analysis: The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall").Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #63 March 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteBut it does expressly specify "the people", which back then pretty much meant all US citizens who were neither slaves nor aboriginals. And by "pretty much" meant only male, white, land owners old enough to vote. I don't think so. White male land owners were those qualified to vote, but "the people" was, and is, more expansive. Aside from sections having to do with elections and elective offices in particular, there is nothing in the Constitution that limits the definition of "the people" as "qualified voters"; rather "the people" refers to - at the very least - the general citizenry. Note, incidentally, that the large majority of provisions of the US Constitution apply to anyone subject to US jurisdiction, and not just US citizens (again, aside from sections dealing with those qualified to vote or hold elective office). Whether the specific inclusion of the phrase "the people" in the 2nd Amendment makes that amendment's rights applicable to anyone on US territory, regardless of citizenship, or only US citizens, remains an as-yet unresolved question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #64 March 7, 2012 This really can be an interesting discussion of legal and constitutional analysis. Unfortunately, the inevitable devolution of the thread into invective is the reason why I generally don't plunge into most gun threads, lest I get hit with all the flying slime. Pity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #65 March 7, 2012 I thought your original response was quite good.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,340 #66 March 7, 2012 Quote Now personally I think it would be a bad idea to have such weapons sold at the local flea market. I do think it would be a very bad idea to have weapons whose only useful function is to bring down aircraft sold to anybody who can show they don't have any felonies on their record, or who haven't been certified a nutter by the courts. I guess I don't trust people that much. Think of those folks who flood city hall with complaints of noisy jump planes, trying to get the DZ closed. They might not just complain, or moon the plane, if they could easily buy a Stinger. But when I look at the 2nd amendment, I can find no comfort in a clear line that would limit the right to just guns. It won't surprise me if sooner or later some militia group or other citizen goes to court to challenge laws against private ownership of military type weapons, and I wouldn't be totally shocked if they prevailed. Don #1 - Stingers are useful for things other than bringing down planes. That's their primary function, but they can be used against any heat generating target. They'd be pretty useful against a "soft" vehicle, or on a noisy bonfire party #2 - Heller, while affirming the 2nd as an individual right and stating self defense as a legitimate reason for the possesion of arms, did allow for reasonable limitations. Free speech has the same restrictions. While not stated in the opinion (AFAIK, I haven't read the whole thing), I think the level of "personal" weapons is a reasonable level. But what kind of personal weapons? The Stinger is a one-man weapon. It helps to have an assistant, but it isn't necessary. And the bigger Machine guns are considered "crew-served." even the lowly M-60 was considered an 2 man operation. And those are legal to own if you are willing to jump through all the NFA hoops. There is a push from the "rock & roll" community (machine gun owners) to get NFA 1934 repealed. The Miller descison about "Milita Weapons" should have nullified it (and would have if other events hadn't taken place). And last - Don't forget about the battle of Lexington and Concord. The Brits went there to destroy the large weapons (crew served cannon and supplies to operate them) of the local milita. Collectively owned by the local citizens."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #67 March 7, 2012 QuoteThe REASON is the militia. People on the pro-gun side keeping bringing up the militia so clearly that MUST be the reason... blah-blah-blah OR . . . admit it ALL matters AND the militia is the reason. The militia is but ONE of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment. Other reasons are self defense, property defense, deterring mischief, and hunting. The problem with your argument is in presuming that the militia is the ONLY reason for the 2nd Amendment - it's not. It is, however a strong reason for it. So the militia idea is important, but not the sole reason for it. That's not having it both ways, that's just the facts, Jack. Here's some reading homework for you: http://old.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopelprint051601.html http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,122 #68 March 7, 2012 I would be interested in hearing your opinion on Don's questions above. Clearly the 2nd amendment gives people the right to own arms. But where do the restrictions on arms come from? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #69 March 7, 2012 QuoteIf "public safety" is not ever acceptable as a reason to limit such rights, why can't a law abiding person hang around an airport with a Stinger missile? Here's why - "Hold my beer and watch this." California man arrested in killing of girlfriend with cannon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #70 March 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteIf "public safety" is not ever acceptable as a reason to limit such rights, why can't a law abiding person hang around an airport with a Stinger missile? Here's why - "Hold my beer and watch this." California man arrested in killing of girlfriend with cannon I was wondering when this would pop up here! 24 hours late.. Shame on you! lolRemster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #71 March 8, 2012 Quote Here's why - "Hold my beer and watch this." California man arrested in killing of girlfriend with cannon Why are you a cannon-o-phobe? Cannons don't kill people, people kill people. They can have my cannon when they pry it from my cold, dead hands."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #72 March 8, 2012 I adhere to the cannons of ethics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fernjack455 0 #73 March 8, 2012 QuoteQuoteDid you expect anti-gun believers to be anything other than purposefully obtuse, narrow minded and shallow in any gun discussion? That the subject has been hashed over many times before must be lost on them. Back in the day, those types were classified as *sore losers.* Let them sulk and pout. Unless some future court case rescinds the 2nd Amendment, the pro gun faction today remains the winner. Thanks for your completely useless contribution to an otherwise interesting thread. No-one has suggested anything about restricting gun rights, in fact quite the opposite. Wait, let me write that in words you might understand: No one say guns bad. Only ask why not really big guns OK? To everyone else, thanks for the spirited discussion. Don Pulllease..... It's all about intellectual masturbation by anti-gun nuts. The 2nd amend ain't going anywhere. Do you understand those small words? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #74 March 8, 2012 Pulllease..... It's all about intellectual masturbation by antipro-gun nuts. The 2nd amend ain't going anywhere. Do you understand those small words? quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #75 March 8, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteDid you expect anti-gun believers to be anything other than purposefully obtuse, narrow minded and shallow in any gun discussion? That the subject has been hashed over many times before must be lost on them. Back in the day, those types were classified as *sore losers.* Let them sulk and pout. Unless some future court case rescinds the 2nd Amendment, the pro gun faction today remains the winner. Thanks for your completely useless contribution to an otherwise interesting thread. No-one has suggested anything about restricting gun rights, in fact quite the opposite. Wait, let me write that in words you might understand: No one say guns bad. Only ask why not really big guns OK? To everyone else, thanks for the spirited discussion. Don Pulllease..... It's all about intellectual masturbation by anti-gun nuts. The 2nd amend ain't going anywhere. Do you understand those small words?Hey look! aarco's less coherent twin is back. Odd that you're so defensive about the 2nd that you get your panties in a wad if someone just asks a straightforward question. Worried that it'll crumble into dust and blow away if someone shines a bit of light on it? I'm not, it's survived over 200 years and I'm sure it can withstand a little curious inquiry. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
