RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended)

RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended) (2/15/2014 11:13:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Actually, the 18th century notion of the 2nd amendment held that the only element of the text concerning the individual was their good standing with the militia they were a part of... Actually you're full of shit, was been shown to you before here and here, and yet again in Heller: The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment, an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment... Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense. ~S. Doc. 112-9 - Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis, and Interpretation K.

BamaD -> RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended) (2/15/2014 12:47:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD What ruled is that since the 2nd is an individual right they can ban open carry or they can have may issue as opposed to shall issue concealed carry permits, but they can't do both. Actually, the 18th century notion of the 2nd amendment held that the only element of the text concerning the individual was their good standing with the militia they were a part of. "....The right to bear arms..." was concerning the individual to have their arms in their home or business. An were considered separate arms from any other arms they might have own (a rifle for the militia and one for hunting). The belief was that those arms would be better kept safe from an enemy attack on the town in the homes of individuals in good standing with their "...well regulated militia...". Rather than in an arsenal which the enemy could destroy in the middle of the night and place the town in great peril. An that those arms of the individual in the militia are used for a specific purpose, "....being necessary to the security of a free state...". They didn't have to deal with the modern era problems that firearms hold to lawmakers in the 18th century. Or I suspect they would have added in a line or two spelling out the individuals right to self defense on an individual level. Ignoring the first half of that amendment and re-interpreting the second half as you want is a very unwise idea. Consider ignoring the first two thirds of the 8th amendment and re-interpreting the remainder. What sort of problems would come about? We can go back and forth on this. So I will give you a counter proposal. How about the 28th amendment as a sort of 'update' of the 2nd amendment in the modern era of America? I'm sure you can understand quite well that such a notion is not to be screwed around with lightly, right? An that it involves a serious understanding of not just the logistics but the wisdom to handle concepts, ideas and technology years after we are gone from this Earth. Something that keeps the government in check, yet does not create more problems for our fellow Americans. Hopefully a middle ground approach on a very heated debate. Leftist and completely flawed interpretation, there is no place in the constitution were the people means anything other than individuals. The concern was an overbearing government and to balance this they would put guns under the control of government.

BamaD -> RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended) (2/15/2014 12:48:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether Actually, the 18th century notion of the 2nd amendment held that the only element of the text concerning the individual was their good standing with the militia they were a part of... Actually you're full of shit, was been shown to you before here and here, and yet again in Heller: The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment, an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment... Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense. ~S. Doc. 112-9 - Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis, and Interpretation K. I should have read your post before making mine.

joether -> RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended) (2/15/2014 1:05:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether Actually, the 18th century notion of the 2nd amendment held that the only element of the text concerning the individual was their good standing with the militia they were a part of... Actually you're full of shit, was been shown to you before here and here, and yet again in Heller: The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment, an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment... Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense. ~S. Doc. 112-9 - Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis, and Interpretation A good read none the less. Except, my view is based on wisdom. Yours is based on modern day historical facts. The Heller case was one I feel the Supreme Court did an end-run-around the 2nd; which they are NEVER allowed to do. But that case was decided with a Supreme Court were the majority would do what ever the GOP wanted. Hell, this is the same group of individuals that allowed Torture. Yeah, as long as the Torturer believes the Toruree is not being punished its, 'ok'. Can you say 'Violation of the 8th amendment'? The point here is how unbiased was that court for Heller vs. DC? The firearm and similar industries stood to lose out if things didn't go their way. And they all tend to vote Republican. If I recall correctly, the Heller case was of one Mr. Heller, a special operations police officer that lived in DC who wanted a second arm for use at home. But due to existing laws, he could not. So he sued (which is his right under the 1st amendment). The problem here is the arm in question would not be used for his duties as part of a well regulated militia, but as defense for they and their local area to which the militia is 'stationed' (for lack of a better word). Your article points out that the two lines of the 2nd amendment point out two very different views (I'm referring to footnote #1 as references). The first line is for 'the states' and the second 'for individuals' according to the author (some nameless individual in the gpo.com). This Supreme Court took the 'individual' view over the 'states rights' view and thereby circumvented wisdom from before that only certain individuals that are responsible with firearms should be allowed their access. Since in the days of the colonies and early US States (9 states, 4 commonwealths to be exact), every man was automatically a member of the local militia and a hence, could have a firearm for self defense. Those that broke laws were NOT given this right. In a modern day sense, women would also automatically be part of this militia and hence could also have firearms for defense in the same manner as the men. But that's not how the Supreme Court decided on, since it would limit firearms from US Government laws to the citizens. And that most citizens these days are not part of a well regulated militia. So they would have been placed at the mercy of states rights (under the 10th amendment). Right now, there is a court case to decide if somebody who is afraid of being attacked in some form as a pre-emptive right to deadly force through the use of self defense arms. This is an example of what happens when we, the country, allow individuals with no training in a well regulated militia to have arms and used at their discretion. And there will be plenty more court cases like this should it go in the favor of the defense side of the case. I, unlike you can recognized there is a HUGE amount of money to be made in this country by the Heller case being ruled as it were. Does a person have the right to self defense? Of course they do! Where is the line drawn on 'reasonable defense' verse 'insane defense'? The 2nd never covered that particular concept. That a non-militia person could have access to firearms for use in anyway they wished. That would have been left to the states to decide on back in the late 18th century. My view is not false, Kirata, its different from the national legally held view. Or are you against someone exercising their 1st amendment rights? While you might think and agree on the Heller case, I see it as very unwise ruling that will have negative repercussions on firearm owners down the road. A short term boon (legally speaking) for a long term restriction does NOT sound wise to me. If all these mass shootings are the opening era of 'things to come', then I believe it might be in our best interests to ask if that's the direction we want this nation headed?

joether -> RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended) (2/15/2014 1:36:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Leftist and completely flawed interpretation, there is no place in the constitution were the people means anything other than individuals. The concern was an overbearing government and to balance this they would put guns under the control of government. Definition of the word 'People': noun, plural peo·ples for 4. 1. persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general: to find it easy to talk to people; What will people think? 2. persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group: Twenty people volunteered to help. 3. human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings. 4. the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like: the people of Australia; the Jewish people. 5. the persons of any particular group, company, or number (sometimes used in combination): the people of a parish; educated people; salespeople. The concept of defining what words is a modern day concept. Back in 'the old days', they never thought to place a definition to the exact meaning of each of the words in use. So legal scholars use the basis of 'what is the spirit of the law'. The Affordable Care Act (for example) has a whole section devoted to definitions of words used throughout its document. So it has 1 ) how it is written, 2 ) how those words are defined, and 3 ) The spirit of 1 & 2 to be understood. In other words, we as Americans learned from our mistakes over time. Look at the amendments themselves. The first dozen or so are fairly short sentences (i.e. the 10th amendment). While later amendments are a series of paragraphs (i.e. the 25th amendment). Why is it that we have huge legal battles over the smaller sentenced amendments and not the paragraph ones? How many 3rd amendment legal battles has this country seen in the last twenty years? I'm actually fine with you personally having a firearm. As long as you have gone through what ever laws and rules that society has decide upon. That you have a clean legal record and pay your taxes. After obtaining one or more arms, that you are very responsible with their use, storage, cleaning, and ownership. Your loading me in with those anti-gun nuts that want to ban all the guns. I do not really see their viewpoint as a wise idea. The fear of government becoming a tyranny and behaving like old Europe was on most people's minds in the 18th century. In the modern day, the government could still behave in a tyrannical manner, but not as much as in the 18th century. You could argue that its due primarily with firearms in abundance. And I could argue its due to higher levels of education being available to all Americans. The point is that firearms alone is not proof against a tyrannical government. Its how they are used in conjunction to a well educated, informed and studied citizens.

BamaD -> RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended) (2/15/2014 1:41:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Leftist and completely flawed interpretation, there is no place in the constitution were the people means anything other than individuals. The concern was an overbearing government and to balance this they would put guns under the control of government. Definition of the word 'People': noun, plural peo·ples for 4. 1. persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general: to find it easy to talk to people; What will people think? 2. persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group: Twenty people volunteered to help. 3. human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings. 4. the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like: the people of Australia; the Jewish people. 5. the persons of any particular group, company, or number (sometimes used in combination): the people of a parish; educated people; salespeople. The concept of defining what words is a modern day concept. Back in 'the old days', they never thought to place a definition to the exact meaning of each of the words in use. So legal scholars use the basis of 'what is the spirit of the law'. The Affordable Care Act (for example) has a whole section devoted to definitions of words used throughout its document. So it has 1 ) how it is written, 2 ) how those words are defined, and 3 ) The spirit of 1 & 2 to be understood. In other words, we as Americans learned from our mistakes over time. Look at the amendments themselves. The first dozen or so are fairly short sentences (i.e. the 10th amendment). While later amendments are a series of paragraphs (i.e. the 25th amendment). Why is it that we have huge legal battles over the smaller sentenced amendments and not the paragraph ones? How many 3rd amendment legal battles has this country seen in the last twenty years? I'm actually fine with you personally having a firearm. As long as you have gone through what ever laws and rules that society has decide upon. That you have a clean legal record and pay your taxes. After obtaining one or more arms, that you are very responsible with their use, storage, cleaning, and ownership. Your loading me in with those anti-gun nuts that want to ban all the guns. I do not really see their viewpoint as a wise idea. The fear of government becoming a tyranny and behaving like old Europe was on most people's minds in the 18th century. In the modern day, the government could still behave in a tyrannical manner, but not as much as in the 18th century. You could argue that its due primarily with firearms in abundance. And I could argue its due to higher levels of education being available to all Americans. The point is that firearms alone is not proof against a tyrannical government. Its how they are used in conjunction to a well educated, informed and studied citizens. In the Constitution the word people consistently and always means individuals, not groups of any kind.

Kirata -> RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended) (2/15/2014 1:45:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether my view is based on wisdom. Yours is based on modern day historical facts... My view is not false There are several words that could be applied to denying historical fact and promoting one's febrile imaginings as truth instead, but "wisdom" isn't among them. K.

joether -> RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended) (2/15/2014 1:49:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Leftist and completely flawed interpretation, there is no place in the constitution were the people means anything other than individuals. The concern was an overbearing government and to balance this they would put guns under the control of government. Definition of the word 'People': noun, plural peo·ples for 4. 1. persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general: to find it easy to talk to people; What will people think? 2. persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group: Twenty people volunteered to help. 3. human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings. 4. the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like: the people of Australia; the Jewish people. 5. the persons of any particular group, company, or number (sometimes used in combination): the people of a parish; educated people; salespeople. The concept of defining what words is a modern day concept. Back in 'the old days', they never thought to place a definition to the exact meaning of each of the words in use. So legal scholars use the basis of 'what is the spirit of the law'. The Affordable Care Act (for example) has a whole section devoted to definitions of words used throughout its document. So it has 1 ) how it is written, 2 ) how those words are defined, and 3 ) The spirit of 1 & 2 to be understood. In other words, we as Americans learned from our mistakes over time. Look at the amendments themselves. The first dozen or so are fairly short sentences (i.e. the 10th amendment). While later amendments are a series of paragraphs (i.e. the 25th amendment). Why is it that we have huge legal battles over the smaller sentenced amendments and not the paragraph ones? How many 3rd amendment legal battles has this country seen in the last twenty years? I'm actually fine with you personally having a firearm. As long as you have gone through what ever laws and rules that society has decide upon. That you have a clean legal record and pay your taxes. After obtaining one or more arms, that you are very responsible with their use, storage, cleaning, and ownership. Your loading me in with those anti-gun nuts that want to ban all the guns. I do not really see their viewpoint as a wise idea. The fear of government becoming a tyranny and behaving like old Europe was on most people's minds in the 18th century. In the modern day, the government could still behave in a tyrannical manner, but not as much as in the 18th century. You could argue that its due primarily with firearms in abundance. And I could argue its due to higher levels of education being available to all Americans. The point is that firearms alone is not proof against a tyrannical government. Its how they are used in conjunction to a well educated, informed and studied citizens. In the Constitution the word people consistently and always means individuals, not groups of any kind. Then link it.

joether -> RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended) (2/15/2014 2:08:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether my view is based on wisdom. Yours is based on modern day historical facts... My view is not false There are several words that could be applied to denying historical fact and promoting one's febrile imaginings as truth instead, but "wisdom" isn't among them. I am not denying the historical chain of events, Kirata. I'm denying they are placing monetary profits ahead of the nation and its people's best interests. These mass shootings we are seeing in greater frequency is a very troubling problem. It creates fear into people that are left with fewer and fewer options besides having firearms themselves and carrying them everywhere. 'Fear' is the opposite of 'freedom'. Are they carrying the arms due to being free and 'of freedom' or because they fear something consciously or subconsciously? Are you advocating more fear in the American population? The whole point of the militia was to give legitimacy to individuals with firearms, using those arms in the defense of their local area. That those part of the militia were (to use a modern phrase) 'vetted' for such arms. They didn't give people they considered crazy back in those days firearms.

Kirata -> RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended) (2/15/2014 3:13:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Are you advocating more fear in the American population? Please don't descend to this kind of crap. K.

BamaD -> RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended) (2/15/2014 3:48:33 PM)
Then link it A negative can't be proven Show me one place in the Constitution other than your fanciful definition of the 2nd were the people refers to a group and not individuals.

Owner59 -> RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended) (2/15/2014 4:30:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I dont know that one can conscionably accuse the 9th circuit as the bastion of left leaning thought, anymore than you can accuse the nutsackers down in the house of thought, while judges appointed by democrats are around 62% of it, its judicial managment and oversight is by St. Wrinklemeats boy and his henchmenTricky Dickies boys. When one is near-fascist....EVERYTHING looks lefty.....[;)]

joether -> RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended) (2/16/2014 2:08:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Then link it A negative can't be proven Show me one place in the Constitution other than your fanciful definition of the 2nd were the people refers to a group and not individuals. The Preamble: "We the people of the United States..." Article 1, Section 1: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives" What is the Senate and House of Representatives known to have a lot of? PEOPLE! An how are those people elected to office? Article 1, Section 2: "...by the people of the several states..." Article 1, Section 5: The whole thing talks about people not as individuals directly. Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress..." Article 1, Section 10: The whole thing explains the rights and limits of the states. What are states composed of? PEOPLE. I'm not going to go through the whole constitution. An to be perfectly fair and honest, Article 2 talks about the President as an individual. Article 3 of the Judges. While individuals they are also a group of people. The point in all of this, is that the terms were never well defined. An that has cause a good deal of speculation and problems all on its own. So lets try the amendments: 1st Amendment: "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." 2nd Amendment: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." 4th Amendment: "The right of the people..." 9th Amendment: "...retained by the people." 10th Amendment: "...or to the people." The third, fifth, and six each talk about individuals. The seventh and eighth refer to neither "the people" or "individuals" is a specific sense. For the most part we the citizens, are both "the people" and "individuals". And with minor problems every once in a while on most of the amendments in the bill of rights and one major in the 2nd amendment, we manage pretty well. The article Kirata posted above explained the amazing number of publications that state the 2nd is referred to as either a 'collective' right of the people, or a specific right of the individuals. So yes, you could have found a few examples directly from the constitution, by failed to consider it. In the interest of being fair and honest, I point these things out. The problem here is that the US Supreme Court is not allowed to effectively rewrite the law nor the spirit of the law (nor definition if that is present). That role is left to Congress The US Supreme Court can however decide how it will handle a case by how one or more laws in the constitution are brought to bear on the matter before the court. So here is the question. Can the US Supreme Court ever be wrong on a court case? Not just of "Heller vs. DC" but other cases as well? And if so, how is it corrected?

BamaD -> RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended) (2/16/2014 9:24:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Then link it A negative can't be proven Show me one place in the Constitution other than your fanciful definition of the 2nd were the people refers to a group and not individuals. The Preamble: "We the people of the United States..." Article 1, Section 1: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives" What is the Senate and House of Representatives known to have a lot of? PEOPLE! An how are those people elected to office? Article 1, Section 2: "...by the people of the several states..." Article 1, Section 5: The whole thing talks about people not as individuals directly. Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress..." Article 1, Section 10: The whole thing explains the rights and limits of the states. What are states composed of? PEOPLE. I'm not going to go through the whole constitution. An to be perfectly fair and honest, Article 2 talks about the President as an individual. Article 3 of the Judges. While individuals they are also a group of people. The point in all of this, is that the terms were never well defined. An that has cause a good deal of speculation and problems all on its own. So lets try the amendments: 1st Amendment: "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." 2nd Amendment: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." 4th Amendment: "The right of the people..." 9th Amendment: "...retained by the people." 10th Amendment: "...or to the people." The third, fifth, and six each talk about individuals. The seventh and eighth refer to neither "the people" or "individuals" is a specific sense. For the most part we the citizens, are both "the people" and "individuals". And with minor problems every once in a while on most of the amendments in the bill of rights and one major in the 2nd amendment, we manage pretty well. The article Kirata posted above explained the amazing number of publications that state the 2nd is referred to as either a 'collective' right of the people, or a specific right of the individuals. So yes, you could have found a few examples directly from the constitution, by failed to consider it. In the interest of being fair and honest, I point these things out. The problem here is that the US Supreme Court is not allowed to effectively rewrite the law nor the spirit of the law (nor definition if that is present). That role is left to Congress The US Supreme Court can however decide how it will handle a case by how one or more laws in the constitution are brought to bear on the matter before the court. So here is the question. Can the US Supreme Court ever be wrong on a court case? Not just of "Heller vs. DC" but other cases as well? And if so, how is it corrected? So the states have the right of assembly?

BamaD -> RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended) (2/16/2014 9:47:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Then link it A negative can't be proven Show me one place in the Constitution other than your fanciful definition of the 2nd were the people refers to a group and not individuals. The Preamble: "We the people of the United States..." Article 1, Section 1: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives" What is the Senate and House of Representatives known to have a lot of? PEOPLE! An how are those people elected to office? Article 1, Section 2: "...by the people of the several states..." Article 1, Section 5: The whole thing talks about people not as individuals directly. Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress..." Article 1, Section 10: The whole thing explains the rights and limits of the states. What are states composed of? PEOPLE. I'm not going to go through the whole constitution. An to be perfectly fair and honest, Article 2 talks about the President as an individual. Article 3 of the Judges. While individuals they are also a group of people. The point in all of this, is that the terms were never well defined. An that has cause a good deal of speculation and problems all on its own. So lets try the amendments: 1st Amendment: "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." 2nd Amendment: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." 4th Amendment: "The right of the people..." 9th Amendment: "...retained by the people." 10th Amendment: "...or to the people." The third, fifth, and six each talk about individuals. The seventh and eighth refer to neither "the people" or "individuals" is a specific sense. For the most part we the citizens, are both "the people" and "individuals". And with minor problems every once in a while on most of the amendments in the bill of rights and one major in the 2nd amendment, we manage pretty well. The article Kirata posted above explained the amazing number of publications that state the 2nd is referred to as either a 'collective' right of the people, or a specific right of the individuals. So yes, you could have found a few examples directly from the constitution, by failed to consider it. In the interest of being fair and honest, I point these things out. The problem here is that the US Supreme Court is not allowed to effectively rewrite the law nor the spirit of the law (nor definition if that is present). That role is left to Congress The US Supreme Court can however decide how it will handle a case by how one or more laws in the constitution are brought to bear on the matter before the court. So here is the question. Can the US Supreme Court ever be wrong on a court case? Not just of "Heller vs. DC" but other cases as well? And if so, how is it corrected? That is the most warped and convoluted interpretation I have ever heard

joether -> RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended) (2/17/2014 4:26:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD That is the most warped and convoluted interpretation I have ever heard You tried to deflect a serious question and got 'owned' for it. You don't like the answer because it really does make the original question all the more difficult to answer. As Kirata's document pointed out, there existed basically two schools of thought: collective and individual ownership. The two extremes of this debate are for one or the other. Those that wish firearms to be very, strictly regulated if not ban all together from individual citizens go for the collective right. Where as gun nuts demand its an individual right. I think the wise course is to go somewhere in the middle. Striking that balance has been a very hard thing to do. The two sides are constantly trying every trick in the book to swing the public towards their end of things. For you, I would suspect (based on previous writings) are strongly towards one end of the spectrum. An that your views are to press peoples viewpoints towards being 'to free'. All the amendments have limitations. Those are there due to wise, intelligent or both, decision making. You want those arms to be more open to us citizens, then its fair to demand what your willing to give up. If you will not give up something of 'like value', there will be no deal made.

lovmuffin -> RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended) (2/17/2014 7:09:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD That is the most warped and convoluted interpretation I have ever heard You tried to deflect a serious question and got 'owned' for it. You don't like the answer because it really does make the original question all the more difficult to answer. As Kirata's document pointed out, there existed basically two schools of thought: collective and individual ownership. The two extremes of this debate are for one or the other. Those that wish firearms to be very, strictly regulated if not ban all together from individual citizens go for the collective right. Where as gun nuts demand its an individual right. I think the wise course is to go somewhere in the middle. Striking that balance has been a very hard thing to do. The two sides are constantly trying every trick in the book to swing the public towards their end of things. For you, I would suspect (based on previous writings) are strongly towards one end of the spectrum. An that your views are to press peoples viewpoints towards being 'to free'. All the amendments have limitations. Those are there due to wise, intelligent or both, decision making. You want those arms to be more open to us citizens, then its fair to demand what your willing to give up. If you will not give up something of 'like value', there will be no deal made. Writings of the founding fathers referred to individuals, particularly in the Bill Of Rights (see some of the quotes Kirata linked you back to). How is it that I'm protected from a warrantless search ? Is that some sort of collective right ? Can I not speak my mind as an individual or do I need to be part of a group ? Restrictions apply when you infringe on someone else's rights like shooting another individual without just cause or a prank phone call. The wording of the 2nd Amendment is not as ambiguous as it's made out to be. You seem to get hung up on the militia clause. Actually there are 2 clauses, dependent clauses separated by comas and they depend on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". If the democrats had tried to ban Semi automatics 50 years ago they would have been laughed out of office because it's long been understood that bearing arms is an individual right until recently. Of course back then, we didn't have kids shooting up schools and movie theaters. The problem is far more complex than a bunch of guns.

Yachtie -> RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended) (2/17/2014 7:31:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether The two extremes of this debate are for one or the other. Those that wish firearms to be very, strictly regulated if not ban all together from individual citizens go for the collective right. Where as gun nuts demand its an individual right. So you say there are two schools of thought. One being "those that wish" and the other, "gun nuts". Some verbiage you use. "I think the wise course is to go somewhere in the middle." Why? On what basis should compromise even be considered? If I have some donuts and it is perfectly clear they are mine, why should I compromise in any way with anyone's twists and turns that some of them are not mine? How might anyone argue that compromising on my part is wise?

mnottertail -> RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended) (2/17/2014 7:40:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Then link it A negative can't be proven Show me one place in the Constitution other than your fanciful definition of the 2nd were the people refers to a group and not individuals. Uhhhhhhhhhhhh, lets not descend into amoeba like stupidity here.... I will point out your first dismissal in line one, sentence one, beginning with the preamble..............WE, the people and then point out to you that corporations are people too my friend and thats why there are lobbyists who advocate their right to redress their grievances. (Not that I am in favor of the implications, but it is held by SCOTUS)

mnottertail -> RE: This Blew Me Away (Pun Intended) (2/17/2014 7:42:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Then link it A negative can't be proven Show me one place in the Constitution other than your fanciful definition of the 2nd were the people refers to a group and not individuals. The Preamble: "We the people of the United States..." Article 1, Section 1: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives" What is the Senate and House of Representatives known to have a lot of? PEOPLE! An how are those people elected to office? Article 1, Section 2: "...by the people of the several states..." Article 1, Section 5: The whole thing talks about people not as individuals directly. Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress..." Article 1, Section 10: The whole thing explains the rights and limits of the states. What are states composed of? PEOPLE. I'm not going to go through the whole constitution. An to be perfectly fair and honest, Article 2 talks about the President as an individual. Article 3 of the Judges. While individuals they are also a group of people. The point in all of this, is that the terms were never well defined. An that has cause a good deal of speculation and problems all on its own. So lets try the amendments: 1st Amendment: "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." 2nd Amendment: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." 4th Amendment: "The right of the people..." 9th Amendment: "...retained by the people." 10th Amendment: "...or to the people." The third, fifth, and six each talk about individuals. The seventh and eighth refer to neither "the people" or "individuals" is a specific sense. For the most part we the citizens, are both "the people" and "individuals". And with minor problems every once in a while on most of the amendments in the bill of rights and one major in the 2nd amendment, we manage pretty well. The article Kirata posted above explained the amazing number of publications that state the 2nd is referred to as either a 'collective' right of the people, or a specific right of the individuals. So yes, you could have found a few examples directly from the constitution, by failed to consider it. In the interest of being fair and honest, I point these things out. The problem here is that the US Supreme Court is not allowed to effectively rewrite the law nor the spirit of the law (nor definition if that is present). That role is left to Congress The US Supreme Court can however decide how it will handle a case by how one or more laws in the constitution are brought to bear on the matter before the court. So here is the question. Can the US Supreme Court ever be wrong on a court case? Not just of "Heller vs. DC" but other cases as well? And if so, how is it corrected? So the states have the right of assembly? Yes they do, although there may not be assemblymen in your state. Here we have a legislature. Senate, representatives, the whole fuck-o-ree.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125