RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment

RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (Full Version)

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

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (4/12/2014 3:16:22 PM)
First gun control was a racist move to disarm blacks so they couldn't defend themselves against the Klan. ******************************** Actually the first gun control was a move to disarm blacks so they couldn't defend themselves against slavery.

BamaD -> RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (4/12/2014 3:19:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Good thing you're way smarter than him! [8\|] If you want to disagree, make your case, as have others. To just dismiss it is childish. Guess you didn't read the entire post. I have posted time after time the express written views of the founders. They, not I, would know what they meant. Kirata had just posted the support, and I saw no need to waste everyone's time duplicating it. I haven't seen any deep analysis supporting Stevens just sound bite posturing and assuming that he must be right regardless of what the people who wrote the thing said. The Miller decision is seriously flawed because the defendant had vanished and so only one side of the case was shown. Before extolling the virtues of that court, they also ruled in favor of forced sterilization.

mnottertail -> RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (4/12/2014 3:24:39 PM)
I wonder how much founders views are in your 'founders'.

Musicmystery -> RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (4/12/2014 3:56:18 PM)
I had no idea he was a channeller. Amazing. So, does he go into a trance or something?

MercTech -> RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (4/12/2014 4:28:39 PM)
Opinions of Supreme Court Justices don't come on stone tablets from burning bushes. Judge Stevens made his thesis and produced supporting points in law. It remains and opinion and it takes a majority of opinion in the court for it to make a ruling.

dcnovice -> RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (4/12/2014 4:55:47 PM)
quote: It would appear that Stevens has fallen prey to senility. That's an awfully cheap bit of character assassination for a World War II vet and Bronze Star holder who devoted his life to the nation's service--and whose writing is lucid and logical, even if you disagree with it.

dcnovice -> RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (4/12/2014 5:04:02 PM)
Many thanks for all the research, Kirata! It's helpful to get a perspective on how folks viewed things in 1789. Indeed, I think one of the things that makes Second Amendment construction so tricky these days is the evolution not only of technology (which would also affect the First) but of citizens' relationships to firearms and to militia service. The one thing you didn't post was any rulings from federal judges, who were the subject of one of Justice Stevens's key points and who serve as the arbiters of constitutional questions. Do you know of rulings that belie his assertion that "federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms"?

dcnovice -> RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (4/12/2014 5:09:52 PM)
FR One thing I puzzle over regarding the Second Amendment is the prefatory "militia" clause. It came from the pens of men who were exacting and economical with their words, so I'm guessing it's more than a literary flourish. And there's nothing like it in the rest of the Bill of Rights. Any thoughts on why the founders yoked, verbally at least, the right to bear arms to the need for a militia?

Yachtie -> RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (4/12/2014 5:48:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice FR One thing I puzzle over regarding the Second Amendment is the prefatory "militia" clause. It came from the pens of men who were exacting and economical with their words, so I'm guessing it's more than a literary flourish. And there's nothing like it in the rest of the Bill of Rights. Any thoughts on why the founders yoked, verbally at least, the right to bear arms to the need for a militia? Not A militia, thirteen of them. Thirteen sovereign States. Each state needed its own defense. I think the whole "one nation" bit is malarkey. We're 50 of them now, or supposed to be You bring up an interesting point. If it was meant to the National, central government, and only applying to such, why phrase it that way? It was enacted due to pressure from the several States, so it could only, in retrospect, apply to them. "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."

dcnovice -> RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (4/12/2014 6:01:45 PM)
quote: Not A militia, thirteen of them. Thirteen sovereign States. Each state needed its own defense. I think the whole "one nation" bit is malarkey. We're 50 of them now, or supposed to be You bring up an interesting point. If it was meant to the National, central government, and only applying to such, why phrase it that way? It was enacted due to pressure from the several States, so it could only, in retrospect, apply to them. Fascinating points. Thanks!

MrRodgers -> RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (4/12/2014 6:02:24 PM)
I did read it and he makes a very good case and refers to some great court history on the 2nd...almost all of which has been rewritten by the Roberts court. But the fight at the OK Coral was over city gun control so gun control has been around at least since then and in fact in many cities and towns of the old west. The NRA would have a real problem with the Earps and their cohort.

MrRodgers -> RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (4/12/2014 6:07:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Justice Stevens is rewriting history. I'm sorry, but I've looked into this six ways from Sunday. He is just plain and simply wrong. To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them ~Richard Henry Lee The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals ~Albert Gallatin The great object is that every man be armed ~Patrick Henry The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed ~Alexander Hamilton Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself ~George Washington State Supreme Counts have made the same interpretation... To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. ~Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878 The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff. ~Michigan Supreme Court, 1922 The Senate as well... the "militia" itself referred to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit... The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. ~Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, 1982 And SCOTUS 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 It is simply inconceivable for anyone to argue that the Founders, who believed an armed populace to be the best guarantor against tyrannical government, intended to leave an individual's right to keep and bear arms up to the whim of state governments that could take it away with the mere flourish of a pen. K. One could go ahead and write a whole book about those generalities. All that matters is what the SCOTUS says, then and now, just...ask the Roberts court. The inconceivability of citizens not owning arms to protect themselves against a tyrannical govt. is less than the inconceivability of their success against the federal govt. now....should we suffer such tyranny.

joether -> RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (4/12/2014 6:20:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice One thing I puzzle over regarding the Second Amendment is the prefatory "militia" clause. It came from the pens of men who were exacting and economical with their words, so I'm guessing it's more than a literary flourish. And there's nothing like it in the rest of the Bill of Rights. Any thoughts on why the founders yoked, verbally at least, the right to bear arms to the need for a militia? The idea of the first half of the amendment was to explain the 'who' and 'why'. The Militia was designed as not a 'throw-together-group' but of one that had a command structure, rules of conduct and penalties if a member got out of line. Many of the penalties of that time would be considered harsh under today's standards (i.e. flogging). So this organization, generally run by the locals was set up to handle the job of 'police station' and defend against external threats. There existed a common agreement to aid other militia of other towns or the state itself in a time of need. Either as a larger 'policing action' or defending from an even larger invading force. They were also called up to handle disasters of every kind and maintain some level of order. The second half of the amendment was to handle two situations the founders thought important to said militias. The first is that individuals, in good standing with the militia, could keep their arms on their person. Meaning, their arms and gear could be at their home or work location and ready to go if the need arose. At that time, the belief was keeping all the arms in one location (i.e. an arsenal) would prove to be a very tempting target for an enemy. Blowing it up would render the good people of that area more or less defenseless. So, the desire to keep those arms disperse upon the population would be of benefit to the citizens. The second part was equally important. That the arms of the militia could not be surrendered except by the very members themselves as a whole. Meaning an actual vote to surrender the arms would be made by those within the militia, rather then by some outside entity. The belief here, was of a tyrannical government ordering a militia to surrender its arms, could be resisted. Over the time frame of many decades, this amendment was changed from being something based on the militia to individual ownership of firearms. The founding fathers viewed an individual, using their firearm for say hunting duck, was not using the firearm under the second. In fact, how that firearm would be used, in a manner different from militia duty, was left up to the individual state. So basically 'organized defenses' of militias would be protected under the 2nd amendment, all other issues with firearms would be handled under the 10th amendment.

Yachtie -> RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (4/12/2014 6:26:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether So, the desire to keep those arms disperse upon the population would be of benefit to the citizens. Over the time frame of many decades, this amendment was changed from being something based on the militia to individual ownership of firearms. The militia still exists. It has always existed. Both the Organized and the un-organized, made up of individuals owning firearms. Courtesy of K., To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them ~Richard Henry Lee The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals ~Albert Gallatin The great object is that every man be armed ~Patrick Henry The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed ~Alexander Hamilton Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself ~George Washington

SrMaxwell -> RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (4/12/2014 6:39:56 PM)
Funny to see the experts pontificate about gun rights. Bottom line, you Americans kill each other with devastating regularity at the rate of 3000 per year. About the same toll as the 9/11 terrorist attack. And there you go, every year, laying wreaths, religious services, reading of the name of victims. Crocodile tears. I guess it is more palatable for you to do your own killing rather than living it to some foreigners? Keep pontificating. And keep letting the children die. For the sake of your propensity for violence. And keep finding support in this archaic document you keep worshiping.

Yachtie -> RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (4/12/2014 6:41:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SrMaxwell Funny to see the experts pontificate about gun rights. Bottom line, you Americans kill each other with devastating regularity at the rate of 3000 per year. About the same toll as the 9/11 terrorist attack. And there you go, every year, laying wreaths, religious services, reading of the name of victims. Crocodile tears. I guess it is more palatable for you to do your own killing rather than living it to some foreigners? Keep pontificating. And keep letting the children die. For the sake of your propensity for violence. And keep finding support in this archaic document you keep worshiping. Get lost!

BamaD -> RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (4/12/2014 6:47:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers I did read it and he makes a very good case and refers to some great court history on the 2nd...almost all of which has been rewritten by the Roberts court. But the fight at the OK Coral was over city gun control so gun control has been around at least since then and in fact in many cities and towns of the old west. The NRA would have a real problem with the Earps and their cohort. Actually no. The law in Tombstone, as in other western town only affected part of the town. The area with all the saloons. In other words it was a prohibition against mixing alcohol and guns, can't take a gun into a bar sort of law. On the other hand when John Wesley Harden was shot in the back he was legally carrying even though he had served time for killing a deputy.

dcnovice -> RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (4/12/2014 6:50:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SrMaxwell Funny to see the experts pontificate about gun rights. Bottom line, you Americans kill each other with devastating regularity at the rate of 3000 per year. About the same toll as the 9/11 terrorist attack. And there you go, every year, laying wreaths, religious services, reading of the name of victims. Crocodile tears. I guess it is more palatable for you to do your own killing rather than living it to some foreigners? Keep pontificating. And keep letting the children die. For the sake of your propensity for violence. And keep finding support in this archaic document you keep worshiping. I sometimes wish CM had the Amazon feature that allows one to note whether a post adds to the discussion. My vote for this one would be "no."

joether -> RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (4/14/2014 1:14:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Justice Stevens is rewriting history. I'm sorry, but I've looked into this six ways from Sunday. He is just plain and simply wrong. To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them ~Richard Henry Lee The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals ~Albert Gallatin The great object is that every man be armed ~Patrick Henry The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed ~Alexander Hamilton Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself ~George Washington State Supreme Counts have made the same interpretation... To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. ~Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878 The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff. ~Michigan Supreme Court, 1922 The Senate as well... the "militia" itself referred to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit... The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. ~Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, 1982 And SCOTUS 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 It is simply inconceivable for anyone to argue that the Founders, who believed an armed populace to be the best guarantor against tyrannical government, intended to leave an individual's right to keep and bear arms up to the whim of state governments that could take it away with the mere flourish of a pen. K. Always coming in with the NRA talking points, Kirata. Don't you have any original material that you thought up? Just because you don't like it and/or doesn't agree with you, DOESNT make it untrue. The "Heller vs. D.C." was a dumb decision on the part of the conservative justices. They did something they were not allowed to do....an end-run-around-the 2nd's definition. The only people that can change the definition of the meaning of ANYTHING in the US Constitution resides with Congress (as per Article 5).The ONLY way the Heller Case could work, is if one blanks the first half of the 2nd amendment. Sorry, but last I checked the US Supreme Court Justices can not ignore the parts of the Constitution they don't agree with. Maybe you can point out to me where in either the US Constitution, or Federalist Paper #46, Paragraph 9, it states the following example: A musket used to hunt a duck is protected under then 2nd amendment. You know why you wont find it? Because shooting ducks with ANY firearm was not protected under the 2nd amendment! 'Hunting' with an arm was NOT a protection the 2nd allowed. Only those arms used directly in conjunction with "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." would be protected. A target pistol, hunting rifle, or even a pistol for individual self defense, is NOT protected under the 2nd, UNLESS, you can show its directly used in duties for "A well regulated militia...". Those weapons and their usage would fall under the 10th amendment. Don't get me wrong. I feel self defense is very important. A firearm is by all means, a good tool to use in such a self defense plan. An that there should be a Constitutional amendment (i.e. the 28th) that allows self defense arms to be used to protect one's liberties and freedoms. I could be talked into something like that. It would need a few things added to it, so that most Americans, in the political sphere known as America would have a prayer of passing. There would be some 'give and take'. Not everyone will get everything they want; and maybe that's a good thing for this nation. PS: The Senate dialogue was produced by a Republican that took campaign contributions from the NRA and firearm groups. Don't you think that makes him just...alittle....corrupted? Nay....it defends your point, so naturally you'll overlook it....

joether -> RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (4/14/2014 1:40:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: joether So, the desire to keep those arms disperse upon the population would be of benefit to the citizens. Over the time frame of many decades, this amendment was changed from being something based on the militia to individual ownership of firearms. The militia still exists. It has always existed. Both the Organized and the un-organized, made up of individuals owning firearms. A well regulated militia is one that serves, REGARDLESS of who is in office, and what party they are apart of. If its a liberal Democrat, those within the militia would STILL follow the orders. Just like the US military. There are those within that group that dislike President Obama; yet, have to follow the orders he gives. Those 'militia's that can not handle this are NOT, protected under the 2nd amendment. They would be called 'bandits' and 'law-less men' since they operate outside established laws. quote: Courtesy of K., To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them ~Richard Henry Lee The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals ~Albert Gallatin The great object is that every man be armed ~Patrick Henry The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed ~Alexander Hamilton Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself ~George Washington Yeah, there was another thread, that I showed the flaws of the points being made. That these quotes were taken well outside of context to serve a political agenda. Would George Washington, a military man, be in favor of hoodlums with guns? People that used their guns to intimidate other Americans to do things they wanted? No, not very likely. Those in a militia were generally anyone 18-79 years of age that lived locally (i.e. every adult male). So those not under penalty could obtain a firearm as part of their duties in the militia. Those that broke the rules were penalized, and usually not allowed their arms until the penalty was handled correctly by the rules. Not all militias its worth noting, were strict. How many of those supporting the King of England, do you think Hamilton wanted with guns? They would have had a motivate to extract some payback, don't you think? Fortunately, it was a totally different era and customs back then.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875