|
BamaD -> RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (3/20/2015 10:37:14 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
You insist (incorrectly) that Heller was the first time that the 2nd as an individual right was upheld.
Is the 10th amendment an individual right? Or one given to the states?
The Heller vs DC case is one in which the US Supreme Court pushed a political viewpoint rather than a Constitutional viewpoint. The firearm Mr. Heller wished to used for personal security was not one to be used with his day job. The local government was pretty clear on the definition of personal firearm usage. That Mr. Heller's firearm was not used in conjunction with the actions of "A well regulated militia.....". His OTHER firearm, the one he uses for his work as a police officer....IS....protected under the 2nd amendment. Because that one....IS.....used with "A well regulated militia....". You can tell the difference between these two concepts BamaD. Also, you would have read the full document and understood everything within it. So you and I both know, your pushing a political viewpoint that has NOTHING to do with what the founding fathers issued inside the 2nd amendment.
The founding fathers did not ban firearms to all except the militia. No where in the US Constitution does it say....ONLY....the militia can have firearms. HOWEVER, it does state, those concepts not explained within are for the states to decide. The states would be forced to decide how firearms in the hands of individuals is handled for non-policing/non-military matters. Meaning a simple hunter of deer could have a firearm; however, if the state ban a firearm, the only people that could still access it, would the the well regulated militias (as per the 2nd).
You and I both know this stuff, so please, dispense with the political bullshit. The only way you could arrive at the US Supreme Court's viewpoint is either being totally ignorant of the US Constitution, or holding a political/financial motivation to the court's decision.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
The job of the Supreme court is to interpret the Constitution.
If they were interpreting the amendment correctly, they would have had to side with the lower courts on the matter. But they didn't. They did an 'end run around the 2nd' in establishing a new 'understanding' of the amendment. Which I have pointed out....THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO. I say this, because it should work the same if we had five liberal court justices on the bench deciding on the 2nd or other matters important to the court. I want things 'across the board'; you want them skewed towards one political viewpoint. History has shown that....NEVER....ends well for this nation.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
You also ignore the fact that the people who wrote the 2nd unanimously agreed that it was an individual right, so they were following the stand of those people. Your attempt to claim that it is other than an individual right is the attempt to change the meaning.
No, your the one insisting that its an individual right. Got a youtube video of the founding fathers stating this to show? No, so all you have is hearsay and writings. The writings, can be taken in different ways. Thus, creating a debate that has raged in this country for decades now.
All the parts of the 2nd amendment go together for a reason. Has that never dawn on you? Why do we not find issue about handling 'punishment and torture' next to 'prohibiting soldiers from bunking in people's homes' as per the 3rd amendment? Even though both are prohibited, the first concept would work better under the 8th. Its meaning, more closing matching the rest of the 8th's meaning. If you sit down with the history books, you'll find the founding fathers tried unsuccessfully to incorporate the concepts of the 1st and 2nd together. The problem is the two concepts never fit together because they talk on different concepts (one on language and expression, the other on defense).
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
You forget, or ignore the fact that the militia was everyone.
No, a militia was made up of...LEGAL...citizens. Brigands, were not a militia. Nor highwayman or pirates! "A well regulated militia...." was a militia that had ranks, rules, and even punishments for doing the wrong things with power. Go look up the Minute Men who fought the British on the infamous march through Lexington and Concord Massachusetts. They had corporals, sergeants, and even captains. This idea was well established before that event took place. They simply took that idea as the basis for the 2nd amendment requirement of 'well regulated'. The modern day equivalent of the militia is the local police department. They have....LOTS.....of regulations and rules they have to follow. An as such, have access to even military gear (as that is protected under the 2nd amendment).
More importantly, a militia was composed of individuals in good standing with the law and their communities. They didn't allow 'old crazy Dave' with a gun (which with modern medicine could easily be treated and even healed). Nor the Blackwell brothers whom regularly beat people up for gambling debts. That it happen, does shed light on how black Americans were targeted in the South for decades until federal authorizes dealt with it directly. Throughout American history, the need for good, well established regulations of the militia have been thought on and implemented into law. And that we have people that watch those in law enforcement operate on a daily basis.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
You also ignore the fact that by Federal Law every able bodied man in the country is part of the militia. Another thing you forget is that from their view individuals having firearms allowed them to defend themselves against brigands.
No, you ignore the fact that by Federal Law, every....MALE....must be signed up for Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthdays, or upon becoming US Citizens if they are immigrants. And those drafted for military conscription is for the United States Armed Services...NOT...the local militia. Its a 'wild west' notion to call on the good citizens to grab their guns and help the sheriff track down a band of outlaws. In modern America, a local police force, faced with a band of outlaws can call on other militia groups for immediate aid. That if the governor believes the issue great, to deploy the National Guard. Even before such an event takes place, the Fed is notified and may even deploy federal resources to deal with the issue.
Individuals 'in the old days' were not barred from having firearms. I think I've made the case several times of the hunter with a deer using a firearm. That individuals can use firearms....IF....its allowed by their state. If the federal government, outlaws a particular gun; the only people at the individual level to have one (unless grandfathered under the law), would be those part of "A well regulated militia...." aka, the police!
Do we live in 1795? Or 2015?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Yet another thing is that it ok'd the possession of the military musket which was the assault weapon of the day as well as private ownership of artillery pieces.
Oh, so because it was 'OK' back then to do or have something, its 'OK' for it now, irrelevant of history and knowledge? Sorry, but you will STILL get arrested for running into a crowded theater and shouting 'FIRE" at the top of your lungs.
Likewise, how many of those founding fathers would be turned shit white, watching the destructive firepower of the modern 'military musket'? A weapon that can unload 30 'lead balls' accurately to 300 yards (250 yards more than their weapons) in less time then their arms of their era. With even further levels of penetration (i.e. blow through potential), and reload for another 30 rounds in less than five seconds. There is a reason we don't see 'lines of infantry' fighting in World War Two as they did in the American Civil War.
Or have those founding fathers sit down with modern medical doctors in the emergency rooms across the country, and explain in graphic detail what those injuries look like. They would not just be turned shit white on their faces, but crap their pants!
What is the difference between the artillery of the late 18th century and 2015? The 18th century could do damage to an area about 50 feet in diameter. 2015 artillery can turn whole countries into nuclear wastelands! An you want private citizens with access to such heavy artillery? Image what the Tea Party extremists would do with such weapons? Oh yeah,
I forgot....The Oklahoma City Bombing of April 19th, 1995!
You make a silly notion that the founding fathers knew this was going to happen. Devoid of reality in favor of fantasy is your political position here!
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Next your interpretation ignores the English language. The militia part of the amendment cannot stand alone as a sentence. The shall not infringe can, there for the first part takes a back seat to the first. If only allowed to militia members it is a privilege, not a right.
"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."; is a fragmented sentence, yes, BUT, that is how they explained law back in the 18th century.
There are two sentences there:
"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."
That is the whole amendment in two sentences. The first sentence explains the 'who' and 'why', while the second explains the 'how' and 'where'. That you have trouble understanding it, does not mean you can ignore the first half of the amendment. Just for the record: "Shall not infringe." It is not a sentence. It doesn't have a subject. It has a verb, but not a subject. Therefore, your insistence that its a sentence, is wrong.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
And finally the people means individuals not states, even in the preamble where they say, in effect, that we the individual citizens of the United Sates.
Where does the word 'people' come up in the 2nd amendment, again?
Does the 10th amendment mean individual citizens or the state? Since the 8th is considered an 'individual right', we can then beat up a pile of people or whip them, since then, they arent individuals, but a collection of people. Yeah, your argument here is...ALSO....silly. The 8th amendment applies both to the individual and as a group of individuals.
I'd like an answer to the following questions, from you:
A ) Can I or the US Government ignore the first half of the 8th amendment? And reinterpret the second half anyway I or they want?
B ) Can I or the US Government ignore the second half of the 8th amendment? And reinterpret the first half anyone I or they want?
C ) Can I or the US Government ignore and/or reinterpret any part of the 8th amendment?
This is assuming I and/or the US Government are not in one of four legal manners/processes of changing the amendment as per the US Constitution.
You have to say 'Yes' to each one of them, in order for your viewpoints to work on the 2nd amendment. Because if the answer is 'no' to each question, then...
...Its fair to say that no one (except in one of four cases by the Legislation branch of our government) can ignore or reinterpret certain parts or random parts of the 8th amendment. If we can't do this with the 8th amendment, we can't do this with twenty-five other amendments. If we can't do this with twenty-six amendments, then its fair to say.....we can't do this on the 2nd amendment.....EITHER!
The US Supreme Court reinterpreted the 2nd for political reasons. When was the matter struct down, BamaD? June 8th, 2008. What was going on in this nation in June of 2008? Wouldn't that be a general election year? And some black guy was running for the White House. I wonder if he won or not....
The GOP had lost Congress just two years earlier to the Democrats. And they needed a big win to help energize their base. The US Supreme Court, pushing a viewpoint that helps the GOP look strong to stand up to Democrats, might have been that 'motivation' to vote again. Granted with all the other problems at the time, the issue took a relativel 'back seat'. But if you think the issue is done, or a later liberal US Supreme Court can't reverses the previous decision; your still living in that fantasy world.
As always you distort everything I said.
For example, if people needed guns to defend themselves against brigands then they would want the brigands disarmed (or dead)
You seem to have misread the 8th, the phrase "of the people" is not in it.
You, as usual ignore the fact that the people who wrote the 2nd amendment insisted that it was an individual right.
No amount of twisting can change that.
When did I, or for that matter, anyone else say that criminals should be allowed guns? The right to bear arms is one of the rights, like voting, that they give up as part of the penalty for their crimes.
|
|
|
|
