Bring your guns to DC

[KrazyHorse]

If you're able to do an end-run around the second amendment by banning the requisite materials to make a nuke then why aren't you allowed to do the same for gunpowder?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Even if they could, I'm not sure it's a good idea.

I don't think it's a good idea either. I'm simply tired of the intellectual dishonesty that comes with pretending that the second amendment doesn't say what it does.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Daniel Patrick Moynihan suggested regulating and limiting sales of ammunition, as a preferred policy mechanism for limiting illicit gun usage.

So did I

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


This is retarded. Banning gunpowder voids the right to own a particular type of arm, namely gunpowder-operated firearms. Banning plutonium 238 (or precursor materials) voids the right to own another type of arm, namely plutonium fission weapons.

As far as I can see, the second amendment makes no distinctions based on the type of "arms".

Lets see, there are several different schools of Constitutional interpretation. there is original intent, there is the plain meaning of the text, and there are attempts to read the text in the context of the whole document, with a view to understanding the purposes behind any given clause.


All of these are controversial and each has its proponents. None, AFAICT, would lead to the conclusion that nuclear weapons are covered. The plain meaning of the text, has to included the introductory clause, which indicates the need for a well regulated militia. Which obviously indicates therefore, the kind of weapons a militia man might bring to a muster. A musket or its successor. Maybe a handgun. But not a man-of-war, or an aircraft carrier, or a nuke. Then theres original intent. At the time, did the framers and the ratifiers accept that the state could limit private armies armed with artillery, or navies with men-of-war? AFAIK, they did. Then theres the larger purpose, which I think clearly envisions at the individual level, owning individual arms, to be used alongside other members of the community - here, the explicit text makes this not really any different from the plain meaning school (unlike some other disputed clauses)
Oh, and then theres the principle that uncertain clauses should be looked at in light of the Common Law - which AFAIK, recognized the banning (since the 16th cent) of private artillery, even when private weapons were lawful.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If you're able to do an end-run around the second amendment by banning the requisite materials to make a nuke then why aren't you allowed to do the same for gunpowder?

cause theres no right to own nukes per the 2nd amendment, by ANYONES interpretation. There is a right to own firearms, per this interpretation (which interpretation I happen to disagree with)

[KrazyHorse]

The plain meaning of the text, has to included the introductory clause, which indicates the need for a well regulated militia. Which obviously indicates therefore, the kind of weapons a militia man might bring to a muster. A musket or its successor. Maybe a handgun. But not a man-of-war, or an aircraft carrier, or a nuke.

No, the plain meaning of the text provides a justification for not limiting the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say anything about these arms being limited to the kind that a militiaman needs to have.

Whoever wrote that clause didn't write it properly if that was his intent.

[lord of the mark]

United States vs Miller, 1939

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense... The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."


I think thats pretty clear. It hasnt been reaffirmed lately, cause in most cases (like the assault weapons ban case heard by the Court of Appeals in SF) the courts have denied ANY individual right.

In the unlikely event that SCOTUS upholds the current decision, the courts will again have to address the applicability of the individual right. I would expect them to fall back on Miller, and on the texts Miller cites.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

The plain meaning of the text, has to included the introductory clause, which indicates the need for a well regulated militia. Which obviously indicates therefore, the kind of weapons a militia man might bring to a muster. A musket or its successor. Maybe a handgun. But not a man-of-war, or an aircraft carrier, or a nuke.

No, the plain meaning of the text provides a justification for not limiting the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say anything about these arms being limited to the kind that a militiaman needs to have.

Whoever wrote that clause didn't write it properly if that was his intent.

What the hell is the point of the clause then? Why bother with a justification - none is provided for other rights?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

The plain meaning of the text, has to included the introductory clause, which indicates the need for a well regulated militia. Which obviously indicates therefore, the kind of weapons a militia man might bring to a muster. A musket or its successor. Maybe a handgun. But not a man-of-war, or an aircraft carrier, or a nuke.

No, the plain meaning of the text provides a justification for not limiting the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say anything about these arms being limited to the kind that a militiaman needs to have.

Whoever wrote that clause didn't write it properly if that was his intent.

Probably cause the amendment was revised from this


"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Clearly a reference to a collective right, in terms of the militia of the day. They decided to drop the protection for Quakers et al, and left a badly drafted amendment.


Nonetheless its clear that whatever right is there, a collective right or an invididual right, is in the context of the first clause. And cant refer to artillery, etc. And has never been held to, and AFAIK never been argued to.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DanS
KH: You see what contortions people will go through to make their politics fit into the dictates of the 2nd amendment?

It's sad.

So Dan, do you agree with KH that the 2nd Amend protects the right to hold nuclear weapons?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I think thats pretty clear

I think it's pretty clear you're confusing intent and what the words actually say.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
United States vs Miller, 1939

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense... The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

I might be nitpicking a bit, but doesn't this say that only men are allowed to carry arms/own a gun ?

[KrazyHorse]

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

It still doesn't say what you want it to say.

THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE IS:

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

NOT:

the right of the people to keep and bear such arms as is necessary to this end shall not be infringed

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I think it's pretty clear you're confusing intent and what the words actually say.

If you choose to clip the second clause out of the sentence, and not actually read the whole sentence.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


What the hell is the point of the clause then?

None, so far as I can tell.

Don't blame me because Jefferson (?) couldn't ****ing write his way out of a paper bag...