Bring your guns to DC

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BlackCat


So much more reason to be very precise when wording an amendment such as the 2nd.

Why? whats the problem? That someone might interpret it to cover nukes? What you dont seem to get is that no one on either side of the debate in the states thinks it does - the two positions are that either A. Its a collective right, not an individual one at all or B. Its an individual right that applies to weapons that WOULD be used by a militia, IE infantry weapons, in some arguments including assault rifles. Thats it. The only person asserting the nuke case is our Canadian Fizzo-troll, who is doing so for the purpose of trying to show the US constitution to be unworkable.

James Madison failed to insert language that would show our fizzo-troll to be wrong, and so far the only consequence of that is a lot of wasted pixels here.

[DanS]

I'm convinced that people would have no qualms in sitting around and agreeing with each other that the sky is green, so long as nobody called them out on the matter. The Supreme Court included.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

They never wrote anything like the above, because it would have been absurd

Given that they passed an amendment to the Constitution which, if you are to be believed regarding your historical interpretation, makes a rather fundamental error in wording, I'm not sure that I'm going to put it past them to say this.

The wording has not created any problems for a couple of hundred years of constitutional interpretation.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Why? whats the problem? That someone might interpret it to cover nukes? What you dont seem to get is that no one on either side of the debate in the states thinks it does - the two positions are that either A. Its a collective right, not an individual one at all or B. Its an individual right that applies to weapons that WOULD be used by a militia, IE infantry weapons, in some arguments including assault rifles. Thats it. The only person asserting the nuke case is our Canadian Fizzo-troll, who is doing so for the purpose of trying to show the US constitution to be unworkable.

James Madison failed to insert language that would show our fizzo-troll to be wrong, and so far the only consequence of that is a lot of wasted pixels here.

You get me wrong. It's these wordings that are open for interpretation :

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.

The second part isn't clearly reduced to the intent of serving in a militia.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Yeah, but that ruling is from 1939 - has there been a newer including women in the militia ?

To be true, those that wrote the 2nd probably was aware that weapons would improve, but I seriously doubt that they were able to fathom the idea of women doing military service.

1 .It wouldnt matter - the court in 1939 was not referring to 1939 militias (the National Guard by that point) but to the 18th cen miliitia, in order to interpret the words of the 18th cent writers of the amendment

2. They certainly could have envisaged that the social base for the militia could change - for example that in England there had been limitations by class that did not exist in the US, etc. So they couldnt have envisioned women in particular is on par with not envisioning a breech loading musket.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BlackCat

The second part isn't clearly reduced to the intent of serving in a militia.

A. The courts have long held that is.

B. I was responding in particular to KH, who was not arguing just for an individual right, but for an individual right to any concievable weapon

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DanS
I'm convinced that people would have no qualms in sitting around and agreeing with each other that the sky is green, so long as nobody called them out on the matter. The Supreme Court included.

except that in the California case on assault weapons, the pro-gun side had every interest in calling out the consensus, since they were trying to overturn the statute. And you know what they argued? That assault weapons ARE standard infantry weapons, and so the 2nd amendment (which they also argued confers and individual right) did apply. Implicitly they conceded that the amendment CANT be read to cover things that are not standard infantry weapons - that would have been a much clearer argument, except they would have been laughed out of court.

[DanS]

So what? You've only pointed out that everyone has agreed that the sky is green.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



A. The courts have long held that is.

Well, if that is so, then why has ownership of guns unless it was for milita use been banned long time ago ?

B. I was responding in particular to KH, who was not arguing just for an individual right, but for an individual right to any concievable weapon

I have to agree with KH - the 2nd is pretty awfull worded. Nothing in it says that a militia isn't allowed to have heavy wapons wether it's cannons or nuclear weapons.

[Colon™]

The sky is yellow.

[DanS]

I'm sorry, you'd be laughed out of court if you said the sky is yellow. Everybody has agreed that the sky is green.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Well, if that is so, then why has ownership of guns unless it was for milita use been banned long time ago ?



I have to agree with KH - the 2nd is pretty awfull worded. Nothing in it says that a militia isn't allowed to have heavy wapons wether it's cannons or nuclear weapons.

why has ownership of guns not been banned? Because most Americans dont want that. Or at any rate those who dont want it are far more motivated and organized politically than those who do. The fact that the constitution doesnt prevent states from doing X, doesnt mean the states WILL do X.

Of course it doesnt say a militia cant have cannons. In the 18th cent militia DID have cannons. But they were centrally held in armories, not brought to muster by individuals.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DanS
So what? You've only pointed out that everyone has agreed that the sky is green.

Look, the case is made that the amendment is poorly written, and is unclear. If everyone understands the amendment the same way, then where is the unclarity? saying "text A means X" isnt logically the same as saying "the sky is Y" The point of a text, is that it conveys meaning. If everyones gotten the intended meaning, then its achieved its purpose.

[DinoDoc]

A. The courts have long held that is.

I would suggest to you that the precedents aren't as clear as you are making them out to be wrt the Second Amendment not being an individual right (which thankfully may force SCOTUS to take up the issue if it is appealed to them). The US v Emerson case I referenced earlier being one of them.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I would suggest to you that the precedents aren't as clear as you are making them out to be wrt the Second Amendment not being an individual right (which thankfully may force SCOTUS to take up the issue if it is appealed to them). The US v Emerson case I referenced earlier being one of them.

Emerson lost his case anyway, so the opinion on a collective right expressed their was a, whats the term of art?, a red herring.

Anyway, even in that case, the court was dealing with a handgun, not a tank or howitzer. Again, AFAIK, even the individual right school asserts only an individual right to the KIND of weapon an individual would use in a militia, IE an infantry weapon.