9th Circuit: Individuals don't have the right to own firearms.

[Giancarlo]

I believe people have the right to own firearms. In Argentina people owning firearms was in a small amount, but now crime is going up people must defend themselves in one way or the other.

Monkspider, I thought you just were religious, but not this religious. If you or your kind ever does anything to infringe on me, I will be the first to form an rebel group similar to the Colombian AUC. So I suggest you don't.

Communism is a dead philosophy and people who try to bring it back up again should be considered national security threats.

Go to the third world to spread your beliefs, but not the developed world because you will rejected by the people.

And what about us atheists? What are you going to do about us? Kill us off?

Communism like fascism kills.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Blah, blah, blah...seriously, pointless topic because no one will ever budge anyone else on the issue, and it's been hammered to death. I'll simply point out that gun ownership is a property right and should never be infringed in any way, someone like Dr. Strangelove will point out homicide rates, I'll tell him that the number of deaths are meaningless to me and an emotional argument that has no logical bearing on the issue, and round and round it goes.

Don't be silly! I have good information that the dreaded doctor will be away at work all day long, so you're safe from a didactic drubbing for now.

Nice to know that you NRA types cower at the mere thought of my presence though.

[David Floyd]

My enriched uranium and lithium deuteride supply are also "property rights" then, I suppose?

Sure, if you can afford it. We've been over that, I think

[The diplomat]

The ruling by the 9th court is ridiculous beyond words. The 2nd amendment says that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

The word "people" can only refer to individuals. Who else would it refer to?

I think the judges on that court need to return to kindergarden, cause they obviously never learned to read.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by The diplomat
The ruling by the 9th court is ridiculous beyond words. The 2nd amendment says that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

The word "people" can only refer to individuals. Who else would it refer to?

The people who make up the state's militia.

Amendment II

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.

If "people" meant "individuals," then the open phrase is meaningless. Congress could have simply said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
If "people" meant "individuals," then the open phrase is meaningless. Congress could have simply said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

They were explaining why it was necessary for this right not to be infringed. Remember, the Framers were deeply suspicious of a standing army and yet recognized the need for an armed body to defend the republic. At that time, citizens weren't merely allowed to have guns, they were required in many places to own a gun and sufficient powder and shot. The Framers intedned that the citizenry be armed, so that in the event of an invasion or insurrection or indian attack, there would exist a force capable of resisting.

Since we now have a permanent military (which would have horrified the Framers), one can reasonably argue that the 2nd Amendment no longer has any value, expecially if you believe that what the Framers intended is the most important factor in interpreting the Constitution. Frankly, they're dead. It's not they country and it hasn't bee for some time. It's our country, and we can interpret the Constitution however we decide, just as we have always done. The fact that it is a flexible document is why it is the oldest working constitution in the world.

That said, I am in favor of individuals being able to keep and bear arms. I do, however, favor regulation, and the 14th Amendment allows for that with its "due process" clause. I don't think children or the insane or felons should be allowed to have guns. I'm not terribly keen on handguns, and assault weapons are right out. In this, I think the guiding principle should be public saftey, and everyone who owns a gun should be required to take classes on how to use it, maintain it, and keep it safe.


Shi Huangdi and monkspider, the Bolshevik revolution was not a violent one, although it was armed. In fact, it was relatively bloodless, except for the massacre of Bolsheviks in Moscow by the White Guards. In the following three years they would defend the revolution by force of arms, by most people would agree that self-defence is a right. If the revolution refuses to arm itself, it will be overturned. Elites never surrender power without a fight, and the simple fact that you have "won" doesn't mean they'll except it. That said, whereever power can be taken and held non-violently, it should.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
The ruling by the 9th court is ridiculous beyond words. The 2nd amendment says that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

The word "people" can only refer to individuals. Who else would it refer to?

"The people" is more a collective term than an individual one, if anything. Certainly, the Constitution and the interpretation of it by SCOTUS and other courts has held there are collective rights and there are individual rights. The argument over the 2nd ammendment is a perfect example of how there is no set interpretation of it.

"We The People" is a collective term, not individual.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by The diplomat
The word "people" can only refer to individuals. Who else would it refer to?

It has been so interpereted by the SCOTUS in EVERY other case before for them when "the people" occured in the constitutional text being evaluated, that it refers to indivudual, and not collective, freedoms and rights, but there is always a first time. Boris, you are a complete flop in the realm of legal history.

[korn469]

Amendment II

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

Zkribbler

Since the state as a whole can only lose its freedom to the government or an invader, and not an individual that means gun ownership exists to keep people free from state instituted tyranny. A single individual cannot threaten the security of the entire state with firearms, some horrible biological super weapon yes, but not not firearms. It seems quite clear that the second amendment exists to counteract a government that would oppress its people, and it also seems quite clear that having an armed populace capable of defending their nation would mean that there wouldn't be a need for a standing army.

Since the US now has a completely professional military that is the overall best in the world, the idea of having the people defend the nation from invaders is obsolete. Even if an armed majority of the population thought that the US was a tyranny, they no longer are an effective counterbalance against the government's military power. The originial purposes of that amendment don't really apply to our society anymore. I'm not completely convinced that this is a good development though.

I still think that guns have a useful place in today's society, and if they don't and this is obvious to most Americans, then why don't they petition their politicians to pass an amendment to ban or strictly limit guns? If most people truly do think guns are a menace, and they put their money where their mouth was, they could easily outspend the NRA and repeal the second amendment. Until this happens, the highest law in the land gives people the right to own guns, and that right exists until either the bill of rights is simply ignored (which would be a VERY bad thing) or people change the constitution. When the nation changes the constitution can change and adapt with it by the amendment system. That's the way it's intended to work, not the current way of simply reinterpreting the words to mean whatever the group in power sees fit. There had to be a number of good reasons why Patrick Henry and others demanded these rights, and it wasn't because they were gun nuts. I think those reasons centered on fear of an unrestrained government running amok, and those fears are still meaningful today.

[Ned]

Originally posted by monkspider
Communism willl never come about as result of a revolution of blood and iron, it will only come about through greater spiritual enlightenment on the part of the masses.

Why did you say "spiritual?"

[chequita guevara]

He's a Christian commie. They're a rather different breed than us Marxists.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


The people who make up the state's militia.


If "people" meant "individuals," then the open phrase is meaningless. Congress could have simply said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The meaning of the opening phrase was to distinguish (in relation to orders of British martial law under Gage, etc.) that the right of keeping arms did not lodge with the state, i.e. that the state could not centralize the storage and issuance of arms.

The reference to the militia is also more a statement of aversion to a standing Federal army (a la the redcoats of colonial days), and to the notion of disbanding the militia (IIRC, ordered by Gov. Hutchinson in Massachusetts before he was driven back to the UK)

The analysis by the Fifth Circuit in Emerson showed conclusively that people, persons, and related terms were used essentially interchangeable, and people was used in several cases in source documents where it could only have referred to an individual capacity.

[Ben Kenobi]

One of the biggest testimonies for Christianity in the former Soviet Union, was that unlike Communism, it helped alcoholics stop drinking. Drinking is not sinful unless taken to excess that it becomes a problem for other people to deal with as well as for yourself. Why else would I include that qualifier?

As for lusting after the hot girl on the street, I assume you are referring to the sermon on the mount, where Jesus says that while the old mosaic law forbids adultery, he says that if a man looks lustfully at at a woman, he has committed adultery in his heart.

This is how we are to deal with sin- not just the outward reality, (ie, whether we act on it or not,) but with the inward reality as well. The problem with lust is not when it is a passing glance, but when it persists, becomes an obsession, etc.

"u should be free to do whatever you want to yourself, because you're not hurting anyone else."
David Floyd

"You are not your own- you were bought at a price."
1Cor 6:19

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
He's a Christian commie. They're a rather different breed than us Marxists.

Considering Marx's views on religion, I should say so.

[Ned]

Militia: 1. soldiers who are also civilians: an army of soldiers who are civilians but take military training and can serve full-time during emergencies.

The purpose of the right to bear arms is to form a Militia. What is a Militia? Article II tells us:

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;"

The Second Amendment's stated purpose, "security of a free State," has nothing to do with armed conflict between the United States and foreign powers. That is the primary province of the Army and Navy, and the Militia, but only when called up for that purpose.

"[S]ecurity of a free State," then reduces to the security of a state to maintain its freedom. It is not necessary to the security of the United States - our else that language would have been used.

As MTG said, the purpose of guaranteeing the right of the people to keep their own arms is to prevent the State or Federal government from keeping those ams in an armory. Disarming the people always seems to be the first steps in imposing despotism.

The next question becomes whether the bearers of arms must be part of the a "well regulated" Militia. The amendment is unclear on this point. However, one of the means for imposing despotism could be simply dismissing the militia and the confiscating arms.

Therefore, I think proper interpretation of the amendment reduces to the right of the people to keep and bear "military" type arms, this in order that they may form a state Militia to defend freedom.

I don't know whether the Second Amendment has been applied to State laws. But it seems it has, or else the 9th Cir. could have simply held that the state law was not unconsitutional on that basis.

So, if the Second Amendment applies to states, I think it would clearly unconstitutional to ban "assault" weapons, which clearly are military type weapons. The 9th Cir. must be wrong.