Bestest Presidents

[Ted Striker]

Yeah right guys. Nice spin.

But if there was absolutley no relation of militias to guns, it would have never been mentioned in the first place. Duh.

Explanatory, MEANING, "hey, I'm telling you guys the reason we have this clause is so we can form militias."

Do you SEE any militas around? (The wackos at the Michigan Milita don't count either).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nice spin.

No, no spin. Basic English declares that the independant clause is the controlling one in the sentance. That is the one that says everyone has the right to bear arms.

Explanatory, MEANING, "hey, I'm telling you guys the reason we have this clause is so we can form militias."

One meaning. It'd be like the 1st Amendment saying "The right to a political dissent being necessary to a free state, the right of free speech shall not be abridged". I don't think ANYONE would say that the clause meant that free speech was ONLY for political dissent. It's one explination... not the only one.

Do you SEE any militas around?

The National Guard are the militia. If we accept your argument then the federal government exercising ANY control over them is unconstitutional.

And reading it as allowing the states to have militias is TOTALLY inconsistent with Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, which says:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops..."

What is the point of allowing guns for a militia to protect the states from the federal government if they can't keep troops without Congress saying it is ok?

[Ted Striker]

So basically you want to pick out one section of the Constitution as being able to be violated with no problem but not the other.

Again, your interpretation.

Let's flip the script, the clause doesn't specifically mention ANY of the other purposes that firearms are used, including:

1) Personal protection
2) Hunting
3) Sports

Yet militias are exclusively mentioned. It's not just a coincidence.

And the National Guard don't keep their weapons at home. They are kept at the guard armory.

[Moral Hazard]

They should have included dueling as a clause in the constitution. That would have been great.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yet militias are exclusively mentioned. It's not just a coincidence.

Um... you wouldn't list everything. It's just the most important reason they saw for it.

And the National Guard don't keep their weapons at home. They are kept at the guard armory.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

In other amendments, 'the people' stands for individuals and not just the society (such as in the 1st Amendment). I'd think not allowing guns at home would be quite an infringement .

Now who is talking about violating clauses of the Constitution?


And everyone at the time owned a personal gun. The 'explanitory gloss' of the militia was included, IMO, to justify the need for such an amendment. Most people would probably wonder about it because everyone had a gun and the government taking it away was inconcievable. Though the government banning people from having guns to destroy militias was something that was somewhat plausible.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yet militias are exclusively mentioned. It's not just a coincidence.

Um... you wouldn't list everything. It's just the most important reason they saw for it.

How do you know? Did you personally interview them?

And secondly, those reasons that I listed are the most common uses for keeping firearms.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Yet there are limits on what kinds of "arms" someone can buy?

According to your interpretation, the Assault Rifle bill should have been unconstitutional, because it "infringed" on peoples' "right."

Now why is that ? Why can't I get a .50 cal machine gun and mount it towards the door of my apartment? After all, that's my "right." Right?

No, it's not, because of the way the Amendment is INTERPRETED.

[Imran Siddiqui]

According to your interpretation, the Assault Rifle bill should have been unconstitutional, because it "infringed" on peoples' "right."

Not necessarily, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say that people have a right to every type of arms. Floyd may disagree, but it just allows the people to have access to arms, in the general. The catagory of arms is not set.

And the Assault Rifle Ban should be struck because of its vagueness. Any rifle that LOOKS like a military weapon is banned? WHAT? What a crap law!

because of the way the Amendment is INTERPRETED.

And some circuiits (like the 5th Circuit) interpret the 2nd Amendment as giving a right to bear arms to each individual.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Not necessarily, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say that people have a right to every type of arms. Floyd may disagree, but it just allows the people to have access to arms, in the general. The catagory of arms is not set.

You just said that this Amendment was okay to be vague.

And the Assault Rifle Ban should be struck because of its vagueness. Any rifle that LOOKS like a military weapon is banned? WHAT? What a crap law!

Yet here you are dogging the Assault Rifle ban because it is too vague???

[Ted Striker]

Apparently your interpretation weighs more than you think.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yet here you are dogging the Assault Rifle ban because it is too vague???

Do you have absolutely no idea about the differences between Constitutional clauses and regular laws?



Constitutional clauses are allowed to be vague. Statutes who's vagueness may go against a clause of the Constitution must be struck down, because of the Supremecy Clause.

Do you need a civics lesson?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yet here you are dogging the Assault Rifle ban because it is too vague???

Do you have absolutely no idea about the differences between Constitutional clauses and regular laws?



Constitutional clauses are allowed to be vague. Statutes who's vagueness may go against a clause of the Constitution must be struck down, because of the Supremecy Clause.

Do you need a civics lesson?

Who says Consitutional laws are allowed to be vague but regular laws are not?

Is there an explicit vague clause in the Consitution?

[Ted Striker]

And yet you are claiming rights to gun ownership because of something SPECIFIC mentioned in the Second Amendment???

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who says Consitutional laws are allowed to be vague but regular laws are not?

The Supremacy Clause. If a law is vague enough to potentially conflict with a Constitutional clause, it's gone.

[Ted Striker]

So why wasn't the Assault weapons ban gone then?

[Imran Siddiqui]

AFAIK, there has been no cases on it. And, secondly, because the SCOTUS hasn't decided between different Circuits' interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Just because a law may be unconstitutional (DOMA, PATRIOT Act) doesn't mean it's ruled on by the Courts. There are standing requirements to be met and then it actually has to go through the courts.