This message was self-deleted by its author

[SecularMotion]

This message was self-deleted by its author (SecularMotion) on Sat Nov 11, 2017, 05:44 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Eleanors38]

1. The Skanner. Sounds like a B-sci-fi movie. nt

[Lurks Often]

2. The people with blood on their hands

are the ones who won't work to change social and economic conditions in the urban cities and their suburbs where much of the crime occurs.*

Course the link might have a little more credibility if it hadn't used Chicago and New Jersey, two places with some of the toughest gun laws in the country.

To put it more plainly, the article at the link is a festering pile of crap.


*And for those who were going to come along and throw out the race card, I'll point out that I firmly believe you could drop any ethnic or racial group into a inner city and within 2-4 generations get the same result you see now.

[DonP]

3. "The body count continues to rise" ...except it doesn't, it continues to fall

But other than a flawed premise to start, it's still a steaming pile 'o crap, from another obscure blog that 8 people read.

But by all means, develop your worldview and celebrate it online based on people who live in Grandma's basement and blog on things they don't bother to research.

[russ1943]

5. It hasn't gone down

The body count continues to rise……….the count can rise, it can stay the same or it can decrease. IMHO the poster is in error by posting ‘it doesn’t” (rise). Of course it rises, it has probably risen between the time you inaccurately wrote your post and the time I’ve pointed out your mistake.

[hack89]

6. The cumulative count will always increase unless people start rising from the dead.

However, the annual number and annual rate have steadily decreased over the past 20 years. We have cut our murder and manslaughter rates in half.

[IronGate]

7. So you have a link to prove that it's going up?

Because, according to the FBI stats, it's actually going down.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Murder rates has been definitely going down, unless you have proof otherwise.

[DonP]

9. You are funny, wrong, but really funny, not to mention desperate

And you know perfectly well what was meant and that it is accurate.

The actual violent crime level, including crime involving guns continues to fall each year for the last 20 years.

[russ1943]

13. I’m neither wrong nor funny.

I point out your error and you now post I’m wrong????????????? Even hack’s #6 recognized the (body) count can’t decrease but will always increase, unless people start rising from the dead!
You weren’t just making a casual erroneous statement but your post was a criticism of Walter Fields statement that “The body count continues to rise”. You posted that his statement regarding the body count was a flawed premise & a steaming pile 'o crap.

As to the violent crime level, including crime involving guns, (Why are you changing the subject?) are you sure those continue to fall EACH year for the last 20 years? Do you have a link?

[russ1943]

14. Oh yeah, we’re supposed to know what you mean, not what you wrote.

Violent Crime went up from 2000 to 2001, 2004 to 2005 & 2005 to 2006
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1
Criminal firearm violence, 1993–2011 Page 2 TABLE 1
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
Shows five years (not including 1993-1994) In the last twenty that criminal violence involving guns went up, they didn’t fall.
Three of the most recent years 2008 thru 2011 all increased.

[IronGate]

15. You said the body count continues to rise,

not violent crime.
Homicides have been declining for over 20 years and continue to do so.

[jimmy the one]

22. a steaming pile

donP: "The body count continues to rise" ...except it doesn't, it continues to fall

That's the rate not the body count (total), which continues to rise daily by over 50 people. Even the gundeath rate might not be falling since it might've plateaued out.
The declining rate of gun owners from the early 90's, from ~40% down to ~30%, is what caused the murder rate & violent crime rate to fall since the early 90's, not the presence of the very killing machines which do the dirty work. Less people by rate with guns will generally drop the murder & violent crime rates.

donp: But other than a flawed premise to start, it's still a steaming pile 'o crap...

Your own reply is based on a flawed premise; as far as walter fields article, it depends on whether it was his title or his lead sentence you refer to, so you have some wiggle room, & I'll bet you're wiggling.

article: first sentence: The body count continues to rise as the nation panders to gun zealots and allows the Constitution to be perverted. (by 'nation' he is referring to congress & judicial SC, moreso the republican house).
title: Cowards with Blood on Their Hands are Perverting the Second Amendment

Yes indeed, a fine argument can be made that the 2nd amendment has been subverted by a rightwing supreme court majority bent on appeasing their rightwing gun cultured base. Because it's essentially true.

(spot on, russ).

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. An unsupported claim *and* a strawman in just one sentence. Well done!

Would that all your missives were as concise. But anyway, let's get to the fisking:

The declining rate of gun owners from the early 90's, from ~40% down to ~30%, is what caused the murder rate & violent crime rate to fall since the early 90's...

Got any evidence, or is this another ex recto claim? The latter, I would say.

...not the presence of the very killing machines which do the dirty work.

DonP did not that claim the presence of guns reduces murder and violent crime, and I seriously doubt any DUer ever has.

And BTW, machines don't do "dirty work"; they don't do anything at all without a person operating them. If you believe otherwise, kindly cite a case of, say, a Honda Accord
getting indicted for vehicular manslaughter...

[jimmy the one]

32. ex recto ergo unfriendly icon

icon: Got any evidence, or is this another ex recto claim? The latter, I would say

.. you don't keep up with the rest of the class, since the data has been posted several times the past year by several posters, from both GSS general social surveys & pew.
Do you actually read the posts here & then just retain them for a day or two? forgetfulness I suppose justifies to you your suggestive ad hominem about ex recto which flies back into your own.

my post from feb 2014: General Social Survey (GSS), conducted roughly every two years ... The GSS data show a substantial decline in the shares of both households and individuals with guns. When the GSS first asked about gun ownership in 1973, 49% reported having a gun or revolver in their home or garage. In 2012, 34% said they had a gun in their home or garage. When the survey first asked about personal gun ownership in 1980, 29% said a gun in their home personally belonged to them. This stands at 22% in the 2012 GSS survey. http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/
... The Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our surveys largely confirm the General Social Survey trend. In our Dec 1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home. A January 2013 Pew Research Center survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 wave of the General Social Survey. . http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=138115

Open your eyes people, your 2nd Amendment mythology is blinding you to the truth & wrongly making you attribute falling crime rates to gun manufacturers saturating the market & marketing new ploys & gunnuts eating them up, while gun ownership has been declining for 20 years & is the truer reason for falling crime.

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. You've offered up at least two logical fallacies, not evidence

Apparently hoping that we wouldn't notice, so I'll remind the class of your original claim:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=151385

The declining rate of gun owners from the early 90's, from ~40% down to ~30%, is what caused the murder rate & violent crime rate to fall since the early 90's...

Here's another Latin phrase for your edification: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
("after this, therefore because of this&quot

The two polls you cited may or may not be accurate (which brings up your other
fallacy: confirmation bias)- but there's no evidence that one rate drove the other-
if it did, murder via gun would have declined as a total percentage of murders.

On the contrary, the percentage remained the same:

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4863

Homicide in the U.S. Known to Law Enforcement, 2011

Alexia Cooper, Ph.D., Erica L. Smith

December 30, 2013 NCJ 243035

Presents data on homicide trends from 1992 to 2011. The report describes homicide patterns and trends by age, sex, and race of the victim. It explores weapon use, with a focus on trends in firearm use and homicide trends by city size. It also includes special discussions of missing offender data and firearm use in nonfatal violent victimizations. The data are from the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports, with summary data from Crime in the United States, for homicide data prior to 1980. Data on nonfatal victimizations are from BJS's National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993 to 1995 and 2008 to 2011

... the percentage of homicide victims killed by a firearm (67%) remained stable.

You are perfectly free to believe that the presence of guns compels otherwise
peaceful individuals into murderous rages, but you'll have to offer up some
actual evidence if you want us to believe it as well..

[acalix]

35. You're looking at the wrong statistic.

Look at gun murders as a percentage of all murders. They remained pretty much the same.

That means the proportion of guns used to commit murder did not change in the slightest, the supply of guns used to commit homicide was not impacted.

This means another factor caused the decline. If guns became less available to criminals due to declining ownership we should expect that the percentage of gun murders over murders to decline. They did not.

[samsingh]

76. you're talking about rate of increase - the body count is rising

great to see you're concerned about the young girl who was murdered due to the love of guns.

[hack89]

80. 11,453 gun murders in 1996; 9528 in 2008; 8855 in 2012

as you were saying.

[samsingh]

102. add the numbers up - those are all guns deaths

that's what i was saying.

just because gun lovers feel that 8855 is okay because it was 9528 in 2008 doesn't make those killed in 2012 any less tragic.

[hack89]

103. But they are steadily decreasing

so you can't argue that our existing laws are not decreasing gun deaths.

[notrightatall]

176. People are being revived by gunnery?

That would be the only way the body count could " fall"

That is one stupid statement, do you not understand math?

[hack89]

197. The annual body count is falling

Don't be obtuse

[notrightatall]

202. Let me know when it drops below the rate of death from e-bola in the US.

[hack89]

203. Not a problem nt

[hack89]

4. Another fact-less, emotional rant from the radical gun control fringe

color me surprised.

[notrightatall]

204. Also known as the coalition of the sane.

[hack89]

205. Right. Nt

[beevul]

212. I got your "coalition of the sane" right here pal...

I got your "coalition of the sane" right here pal:






http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172130667
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5598611
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3690810

Someone operating on the procedure suggested by your "coalition of the sane", got John Crawford killed. Feel free to educate yourself if you're unfamiliar:

https://www.google.com/search?q=john+crawford&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl

[notrightatall]

215. Sorry , Mr. Gun Man...

That was nothing more than lousy cops doing a lousy job.

Idiots who "exercise their "right" to terrorize other citizens are the cause. Their behavior is counter to a civilized society. Now go away and play with your gunz.

?w=500&h=553

[friendly_iconoclast]

237. "That was nothing more than lousy cops doing a lousy job."

So why are you lot encouraging them to do so?

[notrightatall]

242. That is the most idiotic post I have read in weeks.

[friendly_iconoclast]

243. Looks like you need to get out more...

[notrightatall]

248. No need to be contrite.

[friendly_iconoclast]

253. The gibes of the politically ineffectual carry no sting

Actually, it feels more like:

[krispos42]

8. And this is why I feel good about resisting the people that want me to ban you, SM

Because you think this sort of thing is somehow helping your cause.

[SecularMotion]

10. The fact that gunners want you ban to me

shows that my posts are helping the cause.

[IronGate]

11. Funny thing,

you won't show the same class in the other group as Krispos42 shows you here.

[Duckhunter935]

16. I am so glad this group allows you to post your funnies

Too bad as a host you do not show the same respect this groups host does in your own group. That's right your group is a "safe haven" as it seems you are afraid of anyone outside your echo chamber.

The only thing even better is if you would care to follow the SOP and comment more on your posts. I find them funny.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. You're "helping the cause" in the same way Ian Paisley used to "help" Unionism...

...in Northern Ireland back in the day. That's why the IRA never attacked him-
he was one of their best recruiters.

By all means, please keep on doing what you've been doing. Without attitudes like yours,
we'd be like the Harlem Globetrotters minus the Washington Generals...

[krispos42]

19. No, it just shows they don't like people that don't discuss what they post.

But that's okay, you carry on putting your foot in your mouth.

[SecularMotion]

20. Bullshit!

There are many members who post material without comment all over DU. Yet the gunners single me out for harassment.

So it's not the lack of comments that upset them, it's the content of my posts.

[krispos42]

21. You have a point

So it must be the content of what you post.

Emotional rants with a minimum of facts, pointless anecdotes, and an absolute refusal to discuss or defend when called out.

At least kpete and xchrom are quoting well-written analysis from major outlets and personalities on salient and timely topics.

[DonP]

23. And here's your award, a "Narcissist of the Week" T-shirt

You can put it in the drawer right next to your "Hypocrite of the Month" T-shirt.

You tend to Google Dump from truly obscure Blogs that no one ever heard of and involve no documentation, unbiased support or commentary.

You clamored for your own "Safe Haven" for the "90% of Americans that agree with you". Even most of your co-hosts have faded away.

But for a perfectly understandable reason, you never seem to bother to post there and you come here, so you can at least get some responses and the attention you seem to so desperately crave.

And of course when you do get a response that hits a little too close to home, you run to ATA to whine to Skinner about how your being picked on.

But then, that's the sort of "Activism" most of us have come to expect from you and we all thank you for your sterling efforts.

[jimmy the one]

33. performing the ostrich trick

donP: And of course when you do get a response that hits a little too close to home, you run to ATA to whine to Skinner about how your being picked on.

As opposed to you when confronted with your own misconceptions & lies, playing ostrich & sticking head in the sand.

donP wrote: notoriously confusing text of the Second Amendment" Really? Hmmm, Doesn't seem to confuse law professors and constitutional scholars all that much. Dershowits, Tribe and others get it.

{I wrote} Another gun zealot who doesn't know what he's talking about.

wiki: {Alan} Dershowitz is a strong supporter of gun control. He has criticized the Second Amendment, saying that it has "no place in modern society". Dershowitz supports repealing the amendment, but he vigorously opposes using the judicial system to read it out of the Constitution because it would open the way for further revisions to the Bill of Rights and Constitution by the courts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz

As per Lawrence Tribe, DonP footsticks another big one: Tribe, Dec2012: I certainly believe that restricting the kinds of high-powered weapons and ammunition that made possible the horrific slaughters of innocent children and others in recent days and months is well within the power of government even as the Supreme Court has misguidedly interpreted the Second Amendment in Heller and McDonald,
... the only "individualistic right to keep and bear arms" (that is, the only right to keep and bear arms independent of the organized militia) is a limited right of self-defense that people may exercise vis-à-vis state and local "efforts at disarming people,"
.... It badly distorts the meaning of everything I have written on the subject to treat me as remotely hostile to the comprehensive national regulation of firearms and ammunition possession, transfer, and use;
... The fact that many of my fellow gun control proponents were disappointed by the nuanced character of what I wrote in 2000 shouldn't be allowed to distract from my continuing conclusion that the Constitution permits, and that sane public policy demands, vastly stricter firearms regulation than exists in the United States today."
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/265-34/15098-a-response-from-laurence-tribe-in-the-wake-of-newtown

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=151287

[shedevil69taz]

25. Maybe we would respect you if you you didn't maintain a echo chamber

for your bullshit...

[SecularMotion]

26. So you think I'm being harassed for being the host of a group that bans gun nuts?

[shedevil69taz]

27. I think your behavior is that of a child...

sticking their fingers in their ears pretending to ignore anything anyone else says while screaming and crying demanding everyone else pay attention to them.

I'm also not sorry if you FEEL harassed here for your incessant google dumps

[SecularMotion]

28. Do you feel that way about all safe havens on DU?

Or just the one safe haven that excludes your radical right views on guns?

[shedevil69taz]

29. I dunno...

You're the only one I see going into the opposing views forum (who welcomes debate) kicking and screaming like a toddler

[SecularMotion]

30. That's where you're mistaken

This forum is not the "opposing views forum" to the Gun Control Reform Activism group.

This is the open forum for gun issues on DU.

[shedevil69taz]

31. Well the only place where opposing views to the ones presented in your echo chamber

regularly show up....

any other hairs you want to split?

[HALO141]

324. Nah, I don't think we would. n/t

[Duckhunter935]

36. this is not all over DU

This is the RKBA group that has a specific line in the SOP that says you should discuss your post. You scrupulously enforce yor groups SOP but ignore the SOP of this group. Please show some common courtesy and follow the group SOP and at least comment on your posts.

[Duckhunter935]

43. You know

Krispos42 is right on

[spin]

88. Wrong. ...

Your posts provide us with an excellent opportunity to use logic and facts to counter the emotional arguments of the gun control advocates who hope to eventually pass gun control laws similar to those in Great Britain.

Keep up the good work!

[Glenn Vardy]

96. Gun Control In UK

The NRA and their gun industry sponsors have told a pack of lies about the effect of UK gun laws. Before the law change, 0.01% of the population owned a gun. Any change in the crime rate had NOTHING to do with gun laws. But the NRA and their gun industry sponsors claimed the crime rate rocketed after the law change. In fact, crime rates fell for several consecutive years.

[acalix]

97. Utter lies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

Gun crime rose after the ban.

[Glenn Vardy]

106. Below 0% owned guns before ban.

Gun crime did rise after the ban, but overall crime fell for several consecutive years and continues to fall. You want to focus ONLY on "gun crime" and ONLY on years where "gun crime" rose. As I said, below 0% of the population owned guns before the law change. The idea that "gun crime" rose at that time is because people no longer had guns to defend themselves with is laughable.

[gejohnston]

107. math lesson

below zero percent would be a negative number. I think you meant to say less than one tenth of one percent, which is still higher than zero.

The idea that "gun crime" rose at that time is because people no longer had guns to defend themselves with is laughable.

Who made that claim? There is evidence to suggest that is the reason the US has fewer home invasions.

[Glenn Vardy]

109. Reading lesson.

Who made that claim?

acalix when he/she said that gun crime rose after the ban.

[gejohnston]

111. yes, he and the BBC said it rose

he did not offer the explanation you claimed. That was question.

[acalix]

302. Below 0%? Try 6% of households.

http://unicri.it/services/library_documentation/publications/icvs/publications/ICVS2004_05report.pdf Page 279 Table 18.

6% of households in E&W in 2004-05 owned a firearm.

[gejohnston]

99. since only licensed gun owners turned in their guns

how did it affect gun crime? It didn't drop. It rose, according to BBC.

[DonP]

101. Obviously, the BBC are just NRA shills

Since they are reporting news the grabbers don't like, by definition they must be NRA paid shills.

[spin]

118. My point was that some gun control advocates would like to impose laws ...

in our nation similar to those in the UK.

Those laws passed because, as you mentioned, only a few people owned firearms in the UK. An estimated 80,000,000 people own firearms in the United States.

It is somewhat foolish to compare the crime rate statistics in the UK to those in the U.S. as the demographics are so different. I will agree that the strong gun laws passed in the UK had little effect on the violent crime rate as few people owned firearms to begin with.

However I will point out that passing UK style gun control in our nation would most likely lead to a skyrocketing violent crime rate. Criminals would no longer fear armed homeowners or people who legally carry concealed on the street. Of course since criminals do not obey laws, they would still be armed with guns.

Of course such laws are basically impossible to pass in our nation. Gun control advocates found that passing another assault weapons ban, even after the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School, was impossible even in the U.S. Senate which was controlled by Democrats.

[Glenn Vardy]

121. NRA has unwarranted power

There doesn't have to be a UK style ban in order to address the problem of criminals with guns. If guns designed to kill a lot of people in a short space of time become the norm, those will become the type of guns criminals will be buying in unregistered private sales in the future without legislation to prevent it.

[gejohnston]

127. except they don't

DoJ funded studies dating back to the Carter Administration showed that criminals get their guns from fences and drug dealers. Almost never from gun shows. There is no legislation that can prevent that, just like there is no legislation that keeps Australian biker gangs and Mexican drug cartels from making their own automatic weapons, which they do.

[Glenn Vardy]

131. Unregistered private sales

except they don't... criminals get their guns from fences and drug dealers...

So, they don't get them in unregistered private sales, they get them in registered sales from drug dealers?????

Almost never from gun shows.

I haven't mentioned gun-shows.

There is no legislation that can prevent that

You don't WANT any legislation to prevent it. Criminals get their hands on the type of guns that are readily available in society. If the type of weapons we're talking about are allowed to become readily available, they'll become readily available to criminals too.

[gejohnston]

132. if legislation prevented it

then Mexico would be like Iceland. What private sale did Sabrina Moss' killer buy his sub-machine gun from? IIRC, UK banned private machine guns in the 1930s.
Wanting something and knowing how the real world works are two different things.

So, they don't get them in unregistered private sales, they get them in registered sales from drug dealers?????

We have had pot prohibition since 1937 and the rest since 1914, how is that going exactly? You mean like this:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/06/16/australian-police-10-firearms-seized-homemade/
and many of these home made ones are machine guns because they are that easy to make.

Criminals get their hands on the type of guns that are readily available in society. If the type of weapons we're talking about are allowed to become readily available, they'll become readily available to criminals too.

Until 1977, Canadians could buy a machine gun with few restrictions than pistols. In fact, it was about the same as hunting rifles. Why didn't they have a lot of machine gun crimes?

Your grasp of criminology is as bad as your grasp on US civics.

[spin]

133. I realize that gun control advocates love to call the NRA the Big Bully ...

that prevents them from getting strong gun control laws passed. It's a good excuse for why they have such a difficult time passing such legislation at the national level.

The NRA has only 5 million members out of the 80 million gun owners in our nation. The simple fact is that while the NRA is an effective lobbying group, the real reason it is so hard to pass gun control legislation is that a high percentage of the gun owners show up at the polls and VOTE. That vote can make the difference in a close election and many elections are close.

You state:

"There doesn't have to be a UK style ban in order to address the problem of criminals with guns. If guns designed to kill a lot of people in a short space of time become the norm, those will become the type of guns criminals will be buying in unregistered private sales in the future without legislation to prevent it."

First semiautomatic weapons are already the norm and have been for several decades. I'm considered a dinosaur in the shooting community as I prefer revolvers rather than semiautomatic pistols.

A law requiring universal background checks might have passed in Congress if only Dianne Feinstein hadn't pushed for another Assault Weapons Ban. That, more than the NRA, guaranteed no gun control legislation would pass at the national level that year.

This year nobody was interesting in pushing gun Control laws trough the Congress because of the upcoming midterm elections. Democrats knew that trying to push gun control would be political suicide. Changes are Republicans will gain control of the Senate in November and if so the chance of any gun control legislation passing before 2016 is extremely slim.

[Eleanors38]

12. Speaking of "blood on hands," dove season opens in Texas Labor Day.

Looks to be a good one! Spring filling the cattle trough, sun flowers blooming, temps hot but manageable. Got my license & 2 boxes of shells today, will check the shotguns & chokes later. Last year I got both white wings and mourning doves in one shoot; the range of the former has edged from below S.A. to Waco, probably due to climate change.

[ileus]

18. Thanks, but I'll keep my rights.

The last thing we need is to be left easier victims.

[jimmy the one]

37. by your own reasoning you lose

icon: Homicide in the U.S. Known to Law Enforcement, 2011 .. Dec30, 2013 NCJ ... Data on nonfatal victimizations are from BJS's National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993 to 1995 and 2008 to 2011 ... the percentage of homicide victims killed by a firearm (67%) remained stable.

Your error this time, icon (& newbie acalix), is using homicide as being indicative of the overall drop in firearm crime from 1993 to now. Homicide is only about 2% of all firearm related violent crime. When you look at the bigger picture of total violent crime, you will see how the percentage using firearms did indeed drop about 33% from 92/93 to 2008, then it has risen the past couple years.

From a firearm related violent crime rate high of 9.2% & 9.3% in 1993 & 94 - as the gun ownership rates declined thru now - the FA related violent crime rate also declined steadily to 1999, then fell to a low of 6.2% & 6.0% in 2003 & 2008. That's from a 25% to 33% decline, which corroborates my hypothesis according to your standard & criteria.
From 2008 to now evidently FA related violent crime rate rose back up, post Obama or Heller, I pick heller.

Bur justice stats, may 2013 (NFFAV = non fatal firearm violence);
.. total FA VC.. FA hom ..non fatals .. NF incidents..NFFAV ..All viol w FA's
1993 1,548,000 18,253 1,529,700 1,222,700 7.3 9.2%
1994 1,585,700 17,527 1,568,200 1,287,200 7.4 9.3
1995 1,208,800 15,551 1,193,200 1,028,900 5.5 7.9
1996 1,114,800 14,037 1,100,800 939,500 5.1 7.9
1997 1,037,300 13,252 1,024,100 882,900 4.7 7.7
...1998 847,200 11,798 835,400 673,300 3.8 7.0
...1999 651,700 10,828 640,900 523,600 2.9 6.1
...2000 621,000 10,801 610,200 483,700 2.7 7.3
...2001 574,500 11,348 563,100 507,000 2.5 7.7
...2002 551,800 11,829 540,000 450,800 2.3 7.4
...2003 479,300 11,920 467,300 385,000 2.0 6.2
...2004 468,100 11,624 456,500 405,800 1.9 6.9
...2005 515,900 12,352 503,500 446,400 2.1 7.4
...2006 627,200 12,791 614,400 552,000 2.5 7.4
...2007 567,400 12,632 554,800 448,400 2.2 8.3
...2008 383,500 12,179 371,300 331,600 1.5 6.0
...2009 421,600 11,493 410,100 383,400 1.6 7.4
...2010 426,100 11,078 415,000 378,800 1.6 8.6
..2011d 478,400 11,101 467,300 414,600 1.8 8.2
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

icon: You've offered up at least two logical fallacies, not evidence..

Go soak your head, I haven't committed logic fallacies, just offered opinions of the real reason violent crime rates fell from early 90's to now, to refute gunnut belief that it was the increase in guns & shall issue ccw which caused the decline, the real logic fallacy.
If you call my claims 'logic fallacies' then you must also call progun beliefs that guns caused the decline, logic fallacies.

icon: Here's another Latin phrase for your edification: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this&quot

A Johnston clone I presume; better known in a sense in English as 'correlation does not prove causation', the latter being a corollary (imo) of the latin, only due the latin tenet coming first 2000 years ago (abouts). Poor Johnston didn't even know enough to connect the dots, thus fell onto a dastardly petard which hoisted him high.

icon: The two polls you cited may or may not be accurate (which brings up your other fallacy: confirmation bias)- but there's no evidence that one rate drove the other- if it did, murder via gun would have declined as a total percentage of murders.

But now you see that firearm related violent crime as a total percentage of total violent crime did indeed fall about 25% to 33% between 1993 & 2008, & on average maybe a 15% - 20% yearly drop to now, didn't it? so by your own logic, YOU LOSE.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. A flat declaration of fact is now an "opinion", and a strawman is repeated

Let's review, shall we?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172151328#post22

The declining rate of gun owners from the early 90's, from ~40% down to ~30%, is what caused the murder rate & violent crime rate to fall since the early 90's, not the presence of the very killing machines which do the dirty work.

No "I think...", no "In my opinion...".

You're backing and filling, jimmy. Oh well, onward with the further fisking

Quoth you:

to refute gunnut belief that it was the increase in guns & shall issue ccw which caused the decline,

That might be relevant if someone here had claimed that- but they haven't,
and you are well aware of that fact

You are perfectly free here to play Lewis Carrolls' Humpty Dumpty...

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

...but you'll be called on it every time you do.

I'll also point out that amidst your barrage of statistics, you failed to note that
*all* violent crime declined, not just that committed with guns.

I won't fault you for that, however; you wouldn't be the first poster to fall into animism, or claim guns have mana.

Protip: Two quotes from history and vague allusions that "evidence abounds"
aren't exactly compelling evidence of these magical powers...

[jimmy the one]

38. evidence dates back centuries

icon: You are perfectly free to believe that the presence of guns compels otherwise peaceful individuals into murderous rages, but you'll have to offer up some actual evidence if you want us to believe it as well..

Evidence abounds of this phenomenon, you are definitely not keeping up with the class. Otherwise peaceful individuals can indeed suddenly snap & commit crimes & the results are far more dangerous when they have a gun. No it's not a widespread phenomenon that would happen to myself nor most all gun owners, but it does indeed occur.

As far as evidence goes, it dates back centuries, referring to the weapon of the day of course:

a quote by Homer in The Odyssey: "The blade itself incites to deeds of violence"

When the sword is once drawn, the passions of men observe no bounds of moderation. Alexander Hamilton

True, there were firearms in Hamilton's day, but that old kentucky musquette was a single shot slow loading firearm which couldn't do near the overall damage a modern rifle could, so the sword was more deadly in Ham's opinion.
That slow loading musket was the firearm of the day when the 2ndA was written.

acalix (1 post) If guns became less available to criminals due to declining ownership we should expect that the percentage of gun murders over murders to decline. They did not.

As pointed out in my previous post, newbie, firearm related gun violence rate did indeed decline during that period, & murder is just a percent or two of total firearm related gun violence. So you lose as well as icon.

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. A quote from an ancient poem that features divine intervention...

...and a political allusion from the 18th Century aren't exactly hard evidence.

[acalix]

42. Rates declining is not the same as percentage of guns used to commit murder.

You're not getting it. All violent crime declined during that period, not just guns.

If gun availiablity was hampered you should expect firearm homicides as a percentage of all homicides to decline, they did not. In Australia they did decline after the buyback, thus we can say gun availability was hampered.

The proportion of guns used to commit murder did not change. Note that RATES of firearm homicide and PERCENTAGE of firearm homicides over all murders are fundamentally different.

[jimmy the one]

44. harping on a quibble

icon: No "I think...", no "In my opinion...". You're backing and filling, jimmy.

You harp on a quibble? Duh, not writing for a major magazine here. I clarified afterwards it was a hypothesis, & a valid one since there is supporting evidence to back it up.
Furthermore, writing etiquette: American Univ- ... Avoid using personal references such as "I" or "In my opinion." It is very easy to say "I feel" or "I think," but this adds little to your essay except a weak argument. -- Not always appropriate on DU tho.

icon: Quoth you: >> to refute gunnut belief that it was the increase in guns & shall issue ccw which caused the decline,<< That might be relevant if someone here had claimed that- but they haven't...

Pro gun people here have alluded (if not explicitly taken credit for) to guns somehow being the reason for the violent crime decline early 90's to now. It is gospel on rightwing gun boards & in nra meeting rooms.

icon: You are perfectly free here to play Lewis Carrolls' Humpty Dumpty... "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously.

Too much stupid, didn't read.

icon: I'll also point out that amidst your barrage of statistics, you failed to note that *all* violent crime declined, not just that committed with guns.

I 'noted' that in my very post you cited: The declining rate of gun owners from the early 90's, from ~40% down to ~30%, is what caused the murder rate & violent crime rate to fall since the early 90's,...
I really can't help it if you can't properly read; then you have the nerve to create false premises based upon your own reading incompetence. (I will clarify here that the declining rate of gun owners 'contributed' to the declining rates, not totally caused.)

icon: .. A quote from an ancient poem that features divine intervention....and a political allusion from the 18th Century aren't exactly hard evidence.

Yes they are indeed hard evidence, that weapons can incite violent behavior. You suddenly dismiss the bible? it frequently mentions divine intervention but provides a reasonable objective history of that era.
Homer's quote 'the sword incites to violence' gives an apt portrayal of the problems existing then, & satisfies your original request herewith: You are perfectly free to believe that the presence of guns compels otherwise peaceful individuals into murderous rages, but you'll have to offer up some actual evidence if you want us to believe it as well..

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. You've been done a disservice, jimmy

Someone in your past failed to explain to you that repitition is not refutation.

Other than that, you've done well here- you've once again managed to convince yourself
that you are the smartest poster in the thread, while simultaneously persuading those that
already agree with you to continue doing so...

[acalix]

50. Rates declining is not the same as the proportion of guns used to commit homicide.

Which remained the same. The percentage of gun homicides was stable and did not change in the slightest.

That means gun availability was not impacted in any way. It's baffling how you fail to understand that.

[jimmy the one]

45. win battle lose war

alcalix: You're not getting it. All violent crime declined during that period, not just guns.

Do you really think you are telling me anything I didn't already know? Reread my rebuttal to icon above.

alcalix: Rates declining is not the same as percentage of guns used to commit murder.

Duh.

alcalix: The proportion of guns used to commit murder did not change. Note that RATES of firearm homicide and PERCENTAGE of firearm homicides over all murders are fundamentally different.

I consider rates of firearm homicide essentially the same as percentage of firearm homicides over all murders, in the usual sense. If you mean rate of firearm homicide over time.... Pls explain.
In the event tho, you might win a battle but lose the war, since the firearm related violent crime rate dropped 25% to 35% over that period at times, about 20% on average per year, which you have avoided. The reduction in FA related violent crime rate disputes the point you are apparently driving at with the FA murder rates.
As well, the dramatic decline in FA related non fatal & fatal violent crime totals, from approx. 1.5 million in 1993 to 0.5 million in 2011, will make comparisons difficult on a small sampling such as FA murder which is only 2 or 3% of total.

alcalix: If gun availiablity was hampered you should expect firearm homicides as a percentage of all homicides to decline, they did not. In Australia they did decline after the buyback, thus we can say gun availability was hampered.

A relatively small sampling in Australia to work with in that regard; but I believe you correct & a credit to the 96/7 buyback, reducing the number of more lethally potent firearms.

alcalix: If guns became less available to criminals due to declining ownership we should expect that the percentage of gun murders over murders to decline. They did not.

It would be moreso that guns became less available to potential criminals, like suiciding father killing family, because father decided earlier not to become a gun owner.
And the percentage of gun related violent crime to total violent crime DID decline.

[jimmy the one]

47. really neat picture graphic

In the picture graphic below, both gallup & GSS note a sharp decline in household gun ownership rates, from ~1993 to 2000; GSS notes a sharp decline in personal gun ownership rates for that period (gallup was not surveying that then).
For the same time period, 1993 - 2000, the bur justice statistic table has rate of violence with firearms dropping from 9.3% of total violent crime down to 6.1% in 1999 & 7.3% in 2000, a high end drop of 34% & an average drop over the 6 year period of 21% - corresponding with the drop in gun ownership rates.
From 2001 to ~2011 the changes in gun ownership rates & household gun rates start to stabilize while the rate of violence with firearms tends to stabilize.
... this refutes the points both of you are trying to make.

*(note in table below): Rate of nonfatal firearm victimization re bjs link previous post
..Fatal & Non Fatal FA Viol ... *above .... rate of violence w firearms
1994 1,585,700 ................ 7.4 ......................9.3
1995 1,208,800 ................ 5.5 ......................7.9
1996 1,114,800 ................ 5.1 ......................7.9
1997 1,037,300 ................ 4.7 .......................7.7
...1998 847,200 ............... 3.8 .......................7.0
...1999 651,700 ............... 2.9 .......................6.1
...2000 621,000 ............... 2.7 .......................7.3
...2001 574,500 ............... 2.5 .......................7.7
...2002 551,800 ............... 2.3 ........................7.4
...2003 479,300 ............... 2.0 ........................6.2
...2004 468,100 ............... 1.9 ........................6.9
...2005 515,900 .............. 2.1 .........................7.4
...2006 627,200 .............. 2.5 .........................7.4
...2007 567,400 .............. 2.2 .........................8.3
...2008 383,500 .............. 1.5 .........................6.0
...2009 421,600 .............. 1.6......................... 7.4
...2010 426,100 .............. 1.6 .........................8.6
..2011d 478,400 .............. 1.8 ........................8.2

Pew corroborates GSS: Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our surveys largely confirm the General Social Survey trend. In our Dec 1993, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home. A Jan 2013 Pew survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 GSS. http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. More neat graphics that "prove" correlation = causation:

ttp://

[jimmy the one]

49. you provide excellent examples

You don't really understand what 'correlation/causation' means do you?

It means that a correlation between two variables does not NECESSARILY prove causation - but on the contrary the tenet does not contend that causation cannot be related to the correlation. It is simply a fail safe tenet to prevent outrageous correlations from being interpreted as proving causation.
Similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. If a roofing tile falls onto a roman soldier killing him, then post hoc ergo propter hoc = brick fell onto soldier, thus soldier dead - true; --- if a horse rears 100 yards away after the tile falls killing a roman then the post hoc ergo propter hoc becomes a logic fallacy (probably).

According to your weird logic, any correlation between two variables should be dismissed from any causation since 'correlation does not prove causation', which is absurd.
If there is no outlandish illogical argument, then a correlation can be indicative of causation, especially if there is a logical reasonable link, & with corroborating unbiased evidence.

Your above graphic examples provide ample evidence of illogical correlations between disassociated events, which have little to link each other, outside a satirical artists tongue in cheeky.
Compare with a decline in gun ownership linked with a decline in violent crime rates & FA related violent crime rates, which are logically intertwined.

[acalix]

51. Firearms are used in 67% of all murders. This has remained the same since 1992.

"It would be moreso that guns became less available to potential criminals, like suiciding father killing family, because father decided earlier not to become a gun owner.
And the percentage of gun related violent crime to total violent crime DID decline. "

You're committing a category error. You're looking at ALL gun related violent crime. Which includes robberies, assaults and threats.

You are not looking at firearm homicides, the percentage of guns homicides over all firearm homicides remained pretty much the same. Thus the proportion of firearms in homicides was not impacted. When criminologists measure the impact of firearms on homicide they use the percentage of guns used in overall homicides, not rates.

Furthermore all violent crime (including non-gun related crime) declined during the same period (what does gun ownership have to do with the decline in rapes or non-gun robberies?)

You are hopeless.

[jimmy the one]

52. cherry pickium errorium

alcalix: You're committing a category error. You're looking at ALL gun related violent crime. Which includes robberies, assaults and threats.

Since it's the relative rate year after year compared with total violent crime year after year (or FA related vc), I again do not understand any point you are trying to make. Firearm related violent crime rate will generally affect total violent crime rate.

alcalix: You are not looking at firearm homicides, the percentage of guns homicides over all firearm homicides remained pretty much the same. Thus the proportion of firearms in homicides was not impacted.

Was that a typo, the 2nd 'firearm'? I will read omit 2nd firearm. I said murders were only a small ~3% proportion of all violent crime & thus do not significantly affect violent crime rates.

Upon further scrutiny I checked FA homicide stats, same bjs link above.
Note how the percentage of firearms involved in homicides decreased from 1993 thru 2000, from approx. 71% down to 64%, about a ten percent decline, statistically significant. This is the same time period that household & personal firearm ownership declined 20 -30% accd'g to GSS, gallup, & Pew.
From 2002 thru 2011 the FA% remained fairly level, avg'g about 68%, an avg decline from 1993/4 of about 5%, not that statistically significant except that, if so, one would've expected a fluctuation above the 1993/4 rate, and there wasn't any.

Percent of violence {homicide} involving a firearm, 1993–2011
1993 .. 71.2 %
1994 ...71.4
1995 ...69.0
1996 ...68.0
1997 ...68.0
1998 ...65.9
1999 ...64.1
2000 ...64.4
2001 ...55.9 ... scratch, 9/11 included ~3,000
2002 ...67.1
2003 ...67.2
2004 ...67.0
2005 ...68.2
2006 ...68.9
2007 ...68.8
2008 ...68.3
2009 ...68.4
2010 ...68.1
2011c ..69.6 http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

alcalix: When criminologists measure the impact of firearms on homicide they use the percentage of guns used in overall homicides, not rates.

I used rates (9.2% etc) due to icon's premise that little change in rates from 1993 - 2011 were indicative of his premise, see his earlier posts.
I think your error is the same as icon's, taking the 1993/4 rate & comparing with the 2011 rate & inferring little change so as to say remained at parity, without looking at the intervening years rates. Another latin error for icon 'cherry pickium absurdium'.

[acalix]

53. Repeated ad infintum

All violent crime (including non-firearm related violent crime) declined during the same period as violent firearm crime did.

In reality the drop in firearm violent related crime was caused by the same factor which caused non-firearm related violent crime to drop.


Your statistics agree with me. You are cherry picking 1998, 1999, and 2000. The decline in firearm homicides started from 1994 which saw little difference in percent of firearm homicides from 1993.

The temporary drop in percentage of firearm homicides occurred in 1998 right at the end of the decline in firearm homicides. If declining household gun ownership caused the drop, then why didn't the percent of firearm homicides decline significantly in 1994, 1996, or 1997? Those years are the biggest drops in homicides.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

1993:

Homicide rate: 9.5

Percent of gun murders over all murders: 71.2%

1994:

Homicide rate: 9.0

Percent of gun murders over all murders: 71.4%

1995:

Homicide rate: 8.2

Percent of gun murders over all murders: 69%

1996:

Homicide rate: 7.4

Percent of gun murders over all murders: 68%

1997:

Homicide rate: 6.8

Percent of gun murders over all murders: 68%

1998: (significant decline in percentage of gun murders occurs)

Homicide rate: 6.3

Percent of gun murders over all murders: 65%

1999::

Homicide rate: 5.7

Percent of gun murders over all murders: 64%

Notice how the biggest decline in homicide rates happens between the years where the percentage of firearm homicides was not significant different from 1993?


Lastly according to the GSS gun ownership has remained stable since 2000:

So why did percentage of firearm homicides rise again? Why was there no increase in overall homicides or firearm homicides?

The proportion of firearm homicides in 1993 and 2011 is pretty much identical, but the homicide rate in 1993 was 9.5, and in 2011 it was 4.7.

So despite both years having roughly the same proportion of firearms used to commit homicide, why is the homicide rate in 2011 lower? It couldn't be the lower gun ownership in households because the proportion of guns used to commit murder in both years is almost identical.

That means declining household gun ownership could not be the cause of lower homicide rates. Rather another factor caused the decline in gun homicides, overall homicides, gun related violent crime and non-gun related violent crime.

[jimmy the one]

54. more data

acalix: Your statistics agree with me...The decline in firearm homicides started from 1994 which saw little difference in percent of firearm homicides from 1993.

From 1993-2000 murders done by gun fell from 71.2% to ~64.1% as gun ownership rates fell about 25%.
A ten percent decline in murders done by gun (93/4 - 99/00) is a statistically significant decline, and this decline corresponded with the decline in household & personal gun ownership rates during same period. You are trying to sluff this off as being 'little difference' in gun homicides when in fact it refutes your & icon's previous contentions, well enough.

Percent of violence {homicide} involving a firearm, 1993–2011
1993 .. 71.2 %
1994 ...71.4
1995 ...69.0
1996 ...68.0
1997 ...68.0
1998 ...65.9
1999 ...64.1
2000 ...64.4
2001 ...55.9 ... scratch, 9/11 included ~3,000
2002 ...67.1 2003 ...67.2 2004 ...67.0
2005 ...68.2 2006 ...68.9 2007 ...68.8 2008 ...68.3 2009 ...68.4
2010 ...68.1 2011c ..69.6 http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

Decline in non fatal firearm violent crime rates from 93/4 to 99/00 also declined approx. 21% on avg (by year), corresponding to the ~25% overall decline in household & personal gun ownership rates.

acalix: .. despite both years {1993 & 2011} having roughly the same proportion of firearms used to commit homicide, why is the homicide rate in 2011 lower? It couldn't be the lower gun ownership in households because the proportion of guns used to commit murder in both years is almost identical.

You need take the avg percentage decline in FA murder during the 19 years 1993 - 2011, which appears about 7% or 8% on avg, more pronounced 93-00; This corresponds with declining gun ownership rates.

acalix: That means declining household gun ownership could not be the cause of lower homicide rates. Rather another factor caused the decline in gun homicides, overall homicides, gun related violent crime and non-gun related violent crime.

Certainly other factors contribute, but the correlation remains, violent crime rates & murder rates declined as did gun ownership rates, more pronounced from 1993 - 2000.

[acalix]

55. And it rose again

From 2000 which was 64% to 2011 at 69% despite gun ownership remaining stable. So why is the proportion of firearm homicides over all homicides increasing if ownership remained stable? The average for 1993-1998 (period of decline) was 69%.

Further more non-gun homicides declined 25% from 1993 to 1998 (gun homicides declined 35%).

Did declining gun ownership cause that too, Jimmy?

In sum the proportion of guns used to commit homicide is increasing fron 2000 which was a temporary drop. Gun ownership however is not increasing. 1999 and 2000 were outliers seeing as how the percentage goes right back to increasing in 2002.

[jimmy the one]

56. both rose again

From 2000 which was 64% to 2011 at 69% despite gun ownership remaining stable. So why is the proportion of firearm homicides over all homicides increasing if ownership remained stable? The average for 1993-1998 (period of decline) was 69%.

Gun ownership was not totally stable, it rose about 10% the years you note, accd'g to gallup, & kinda by gss:
Accd'g to Gallup*, HH gun ownership rose from 2000 to ~2011, approx. 34% to ~40%, and personal gun ownership going from ~27% to 29% spiking to 33% 2011/12;
GSS has gun ownership remaining stable with a slight decline 35 -34 and 23 - 22, but caveats that HH pistols & shotguns rose from ~9% to ~18% 2003 to 2011, inferring that rifle ownership declined those very years (graph, your post 53). A rise in handgun ownership would be a correlation to higher murder rates.

* (tho I discount somewhat gallup as leaning republican this century);

[acalix]

57. Either gun ownership rose or it didn't

The VPC and every gun control organization uses GSS numbers, not gallup.

The decline in rifle ownership cannot be the cause of lower homicides, simply because according to the FBI rifles and by extension long guns are used in less homicides than knives and fists.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8#disablemobile

[ncjustice80]

58. Great Post! The 2a is racist, unnecessary, and evil. It should be repealed.

[oneshooter]

59. In what way is it racist?

How is it evil?

Why is it unnecessary?

[ncjustice80]

60. Loooonnnnggg history behind that.

Basically the 2a was put in place so that slave owners could defeat slave uprisings. When the US put down the southern terrorist army, that bit of history was whitewashed over. Google second amendment and racism- its pretty eye opening stuff!

2a was created to uphold slavery. Slavery is unnecessary and evil. Thus 2a is those things.

[DonP]

62. So the civil made the 2nd obsolete?

Where have we heard that little bit of revisionist history before?

[oneshooter]

63. Loudly? So soon. n/t

[IronGate]

64. Sounds familiar?

Hmmmmmm.

[gejohnston]

65. You read that on Truth-out by

Thom Hartman, who got it from a law professor Carl T. Bogus who wrote a book called Hidden History. All the slave owning states had to do was deputize the slave patrols as police. Also, most of the Southern states had stricter gun laws than the rest of the US. The ironic thing is that the first states to pass gun control laws against concealed carry were slave states in the 1830s. Georgia banned some handguns and knives in 1837 until the State Supreme Court struck it down.

Bogus basically got most of it from a book written 1949 by Herbert Aptheker. It was largely viewed as being greatly exaggerated back then.
Problem is, it wasn't based on any legal nor historical documents. That is the real reason it is "hidden history". Basically, it is bullshit.

He also relied on Michael A. Bellesiles’ screed , Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. Bellesilles won the Bancroft Prize before scholars checked out the citations. He lost the prize (and was fired from his tenured job) when the book was exposed as an academic fraud.
All of the search results are blogs that go back to the same source. Basically, copy and paste without checking anything for themselves. While it was a hit with progressive bloggers, and gun control activists, but historians ignore it.
more reading:
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/death_collective_right_theory.pdf

Since it was not created to uphold slavery, and there

[Glenn Vardy]

73. Nunn?

Georgia banned some handguns and knives in 1837 until the State Supreme Court struck it down.

There are over 200 years of court cases ruling that the Second Amendment does NOT guarantee a right for all individuals in all states to own guns. Why focus on the one that stands out like a wart? That court said that women and children had the right to own a weapon of any description for militia service. We all know that's false.

[gejohnston]

82. no there isn't.

Just because someone claims something, doesn't make it true. Notice none of these cases are never cited? There is a reason for it.

[NYC_SKP]

81. Bogus! That mofo just keeps popping up. Such clearly debunked bullshit, and it still comes up.

We need to put that dead dog down deep underground.

In more modern times, the 2A has been of considerable use to the oppressed, thinking of armed Panthers at the state capitol in Sacramento.

And then Reagan changed all that.

They just don't get it, do they?

[sarisataka]

66. Welcome back!!!!!

Couldn't respond to you talking to yourself over there for a sooner welcome...

Missed the novel views on how law should be interpreted.

[blueridge3210]

61. It isn't.

It's not.

It is necessary.

Some people are a "one trick pony" and that is the only argument they bring to the table.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

67. The Dred Scott decision was passed, in part, to prevent slaves from owning guns.

If they were allowed to own guns they would have possessed he means to liberate themselves.

[ncjustice80]

68. Thank you! nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

69. Meet civil rights hero, Otis McDonald --

Without Mr. McDonald's courage to see the fight through all the way to the USSC countless Americans would now be denied their essential human and civil rights.

[gejohnston]

241. Bogus rebutted

http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2013/01/second_amendment_slave_control_not_the_aim.html

[pablo_marmol]

70. Hit and run cowards with hands on their keyboards are giving aid and comfort to the GOP. NT

[chrisa]

71. At the heart of it is the NRA-fueled paranoia.

The 2A on it's face is fine. We have a serious cultural problem. We worship violence and make it cool (The shades-sporting, suave action hero who drops one-liners after emotionlessly dropping bad guys).

As a result, we have a collection of gun enthusiasts who can't wait to act out that role. They fantasize over and over again, gun strapped to their thigh, about the moment when they finally get to pull their gun out and take out the "bad guy." It becomes an obsession.

Self-defense is a product that is being marketed, much like cigarettes are marketed. 'You see that cool badass taking out the bad guys? You can be him too! You are THE man! Nobody will mess with you now! You are an action hero!' Look at firearm ads one of these days and you'll see what I mean. They try to sell a lifestyle - not just a gun.

[NYC_SKP]

72. I think you're right but I wouldn't blame movies and books and TV shows on the NRA.

Maybe they profit from that mass media violent model that you describe, but they don't create it.

[Glenn Vardy]

74. The Militia Amendment.

The Second Amendment is a militia amendment. Most state Declaration of Rights contained something along the line of:
"That a well-regulated militia is the proper/natural defence of a free state/country/government; that standing armies are dangerous etc"

Who did these rights belong to? They belonged to "the people" in their collective capacity.

One way of assuring the continuation of such forces (See U.S. v. Miller) is: "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."

Letters of Thomas Jefferson:
"You will there see that my objection to the constitution was that it wanted a bill of rights securing freedom of religion, freedom of the press, FREEDOM FROM STANDING ARMIES, trial by jury, & a constant Habeas corpus act... The sense of America has approved my objection & added the bill of rights."
-
"I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till after it was established. On receiving it I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, THE SUBSTITUTION OF MILITIA FOR A STANDING ARMY, and an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union. He accordingly moved in the first session of Congress for these amendments, which were agreed to and ratified by the States AS THEY NOW STAND."

Amendments Offered in Congress by James Madison June 8, 1789
"Fifthly... No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."

He wanted the individual rights in the proposed Bill of Rights to apply to the States. Why didn't he include the right to bear Arms? The man who WROTE the arms bearing proposal didn't consider it to be securing an individual right.

[NYC_SKP]

75. "He" who? Madison? Jefferson?

It doesn't matter really, because one man's opinion does not a conclusive argument make.

I think the interpretation of the 2A by the majority of scholars is a fair one, that it ain't about hunting or target practice.

A "collective right" in this instance cannot be sustained but by the assembly of several citizens maintaining and individual right.

[Glenn Vardy]

78. "He" who wrote the proposed amendments.

It doesn't matter really, because one man's opinion does not a conclusive argument make.

One man's opinion? He WROTE the arms bearing proposal.

A "collective right" in this instance cannot be sustained but by the assembly of several citizens maintaining and individual right.

Are you acknowledging that those provisions were securing collective rights?

Don't you find it a bit odd that Jefferson says things like "freedom from standing armies" and the "substitution of militia for a standing army" instead of "a right to own guns?" He wasn't suggesting to Madison that the Constitution needed to secure a right to own guns and Madison didn't write a proposed amendment securing a right to own guns.

[NYC_SKP]

79. I acknowledge that the collective right depends upon individual rights.

Gun control advocates refuse to accept the obvious: that there cannot be a collective militia should one be needed unless individuals maintain their civil right to self defense and possessing arms.

Self defense is an individual and a collective right.

Moreover, we HAVE A STANDING ARMY and we therefore need to maintain our Second Amendment, unabridged, more than ever.

Don't you find it a bit odd that Jefferson says things like "freedom from standing armies" and the "substitution of militia for a standing army" instead of "a right to own guns?" He wasn't suggesting to Madison that the Constitution needed to secure a right to own guns and Madison didn't write a proposed amendment securing a right to own guns.

It's like you're arguing with yourself. A militia can't be formed unless individuals have arms, the "right to own guns" is implicit, there cannot be a militia without it and the tired and worn idea that the National Guard eliminated the need for a militia is ridiculous: the National Guard is basically a standing army and we are back to the beginning.

The individual right to own or bear arms is prerequisite to the formation of an organized or unorganized militia, the two recognized forms.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

And, by the way, we ARE well-regulated through federal, state, and local legislation.

So, what exactly is your beef with the Second Amendment?

Do you think we should have to keep all the guns in an armory until needed?

And who has the keys to the armory?

Do you see how this works, how we have to preserve the individual right or we can't have the collective right?

[Glenn Vardy]

83. Why does it?

I acknowledge that the collective right depends upon individual rights.

They do not. The militia forces in those provisions can be armed by the State, or by laws demanding that those eligible to serve in the militia (bear Arms) must provide the specified arms and ammunition. There's no need for an individual RIGHT to own guns in order for the people to exercise their collective right.

....and the tired and worn idea that the National Guard eliminated the need for a militia is ridiculous

I haven't said that. Look, you want to side-step what I HAVE said by arguing against something I haven't said.

And, by the way, we ARE well-regulated through federal, state, and local legislation.

At least you realized that a well regulated militia is regulated by law.

So, what exactly is your beef with the Second Amendment?

I haven't got a beef with it. Again, you're trying to side-step what I HAVE said. I've got a beef with the people who knowingly change it's meaning and purpose.

Do you see how this works, how we have to preserve the individual right or we can't have the collective right?

If you have an individual right to own a gun, you get it from your State. And I've dealt with your assertion at the top.

[NYC_SKP]

84. The state can't "grant" rights that are natural rights.

Being armed by the state is inconsistent with Bill of Rights, which enumerates inalienable rights.

These rights aren't "granted by the state", they are there and can only be abridged under specific circumstances.

Your twisted approach says they don't exist unless and until the state says you may have them, and then only collectively.

You're really confused, IMO.

[Glenn Vardy]

85. That doesn't answer my question.

I've explained how it isn't necessary to have gun rights in order for the people to exercise their collective rights. I've asked you to explain why you think it IS necessary. Your answer is: "the state can't grant rights that are natural rights." This doesn't answer the question. Besides, a natural right to own a gun isn't necessary in order for the people to exercise their collective rights.

"That a well regulated militia is the natural/proper defense of a free state/country/government; that standing armies are dangerous..."

Who did such rights belong to?

[Straw Man]

86. Fundamental error.

If you have an individual right to own a gun, you get it from your State.

This is a fundamental error that underlies all your other confusion. The concept of a social contract is that some individual rights are willingly foregone in order to aid the common good. The default condition is no limitation on individual rights.

You see all rights as residing in the state, to be granted or withheld as the state sees fit. The default condition in your formulation is no rights for the individual.

[Glenn Vardy]

87. Answer this question

Most state Declaration of Rights contained provisions similar to this: "That a well regulated militia is the natural/proper defense of a free state/country/government; that standing armies are dangerous..."

Who did such rights belong to?

[NYC_SKP]

89. It sounds as if you think the constitution is there to serve the government.

As long as this is your point of departure, discussion will remain fruitless, arguments circular.

We maintain that the Constitution was written for the people. For the people, by the people, in the interest of those freedoms articulated in the Constitution and in the Bill of Rights.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The restrictive clauses that comprise the Bill of Rights are designed to restrict the government, not the people. It couldn't be more clear:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Long live the Bill of Rights!

[Glenn Vardy]

95. I haven't said that.

It sounds as if you think the constitution is there to serve the government. As long as this is your point of departure, discussion will remain fruitless, arguments circular.

But it isn't my point of departure and my arguments aren't circular. In fact, your side-stepping my arguments is the starting point of YOUR circular arguments. You'll soon be saying things that are shown to be wrong by the arguments that you side-step.

the Constitution was written for the people,... by the people, in the interest of those freedoms articulated in the Constitution and in the Bill of Rights.

My arguments in post #74 address the nature of one of those amendments. Why didn't Madison include the arms bearing proposal on the list of individual rights which he wanted to apply to the states. If the Second Amendment was intended to secure a fundamental right of all individuals in all states to own guns, why doesn't Jefferson say "a right to own guns?" I mean, he clearly refers to the freedom of religion and the press, so why didn't he clearly refer to a right to own guns? Because it's a militia amendment, not a guns amendment.

The restrictive clauses that comprise the Bill of Rights are designed to restrict the government, not the people.

And? Have I said otherwise?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

90. Please give your definition of the term "right"

This might help a bit.

[Glenn Vardy]

94. Please stop side-stepping the points made in #74

There ARE collective rights.

United States v. Cruikshank
Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights.

[gejohnston]

98. you realize you picked the one of the worst SCOTUS decision ever

right up there with Dread Scott and Plessey. You are also taking the quote out of context. The quote does not say what you think it does.
Also, that isn't the decision. The decision was that first and second amendments only limited the federal government.

The First Amendment right to assembly was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens and the Second Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank
The founders were followers of people like John Locke, they viewed all rights came from god or nature, not from the State or the Crown and the State. Another example of why his works should be a required part of all civics and citizenship classes.

[Glenn Vardy]

108. Doesn't say what it says?????

The quote does not say what you think it does.

Well here's the quote: "..individual as well as their collective rights." Does it say "collective rights?"

The decision was that first and second amendments only limited the federal government.

But that doesn't stop the NRA and their gun industry sponsors claiming it limits state governments.

[gejohnston]

110. the decision has been over turned

and is moot
Civil rights lawyers have been chipping at that mess since the 1930s.

The decision was that first and second amendments only limited the federal government.

A series of decisions in the 1920s brought about incorporation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

Read the rest of the decision

In its ruling, the Supreme Court overturned the convictions of the European-American men, holding that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to state action, not to actions by individual citizens. It said that the state would protect citizens.

That gave the Klan free reign since they were not functionaries of the State.
The decision was a racist abomination.

[Glenn Vardy]

117. Including the existence of "collective rights?"

Is that what you're trying to say? The only reason I mentioned the case was to show the U.S. Supreme Court referring to "collective rights." You're continuously trying to drift away from the points I make. The Second Amendment isn't a guns amendment whether it's a restriction on the Federal OR the State governments. You've ALL failed to address any of my arguments.

[gejohnston]

119. because

all of the rights protected in the BoR are individual rights. Group rights (the rights of corporations, unions etc.) are not. That is another reason Citizens United is bullshit.

[Glenn Vardy]

125. Do collective rights exist?

because all of the rights protected in the BoR are individual rights.

Is that a "Yes, because" or a "No, because?"
My question revolves around whether or not you believe collective rights exist.

Group rights are not.

Everything you say is just an assertion without proof. I've shown that collective rights DO exist. The following rights belong to the people in their collective capacity:

VIRGINIA (June 12, 1776)
13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

DELAWARE (September 11, 1776)
18. That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.

MARYLAND (November 11, 1776)
XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.

NORTH CAROLINA (December 18, 1776)
XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under the strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

NEW HAMPSHIRE (June 2, 1784)
XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.

MASSACHUSETTS (1780) The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

[gejohnston]

126. cherry pick much?

You have not shown that the individual right does not exist. Even if second amendment doesn't protect the individual right, the ninth certainly does.

[Glenn Vardy]

134. That depends

Even if second amendment doesn't protect the individual right, the ninth certainly does.

In a State without a personal right to own guns, a person would not have the right to own a gun because of the 9th Amendment

[gejohnston]

135. false reading

No constitution in the US gives rights. All of them outline the duties and limitations on government, not individuals.
That has been explained to you before. That is how our system works. The State is not god's representatives on earth to control the masses.

In a State without a personal right to own guns, a person would not have the right to own a gun because of the 9th Amendment

Not according to incorporation. All of the BoR have been incorporated against the states. Using that logic, any state is free to ban abortion since Roe v Wade was based on the 9th Amendment and I don't know of any state constitution that protects it (or in your view, grants it).

[Glenn Vardy]

138. Ease up on the constant strawmen

No constitution in the US gives rights.

But I didn't say anything about any constitution giving rights.

All of them outline the duties and limitations on government, not individuals.

But I didn't say anything about outlining limitations on individuals. What's your problem?

All of the BoR have been incorporated against the states.

But I've proven that the purpose of the Second Amendment was NOT to secure a right to own guns and you can't address what I actually say. That's why you're arguing against things I haven't said. How can a militia amendment turn into a gun rights amendment if it becomes a restriction on the states too?

[gejohnston]

141. are for real?

But I didn't say anything about any constitution giving rights

Actually, you have been all day. That is the basis of your argument. If you are saying anything different, then your entire argument falls apart.

But I didn't say anything about outlining limitations on individuals. What's your problem?

Because that is exactly what you have been arguing the entire time. That is the basis of your argument.

But I've proven that the purpose of the Second Amendment was NOT to secure a right to own guns and you can't address what I actually say. That's why you're arguing against things I haven't said. How can a militia amendment turn into a gun rights amendment if it becomes a restriction on the states too?

Because you have not proven that. You provided cherry picked references and even then didn't understand, or ignored, what it said. Even then, there is no evidence that stricter gun laws lowered murder or violent crime rates anywhere. The claim about Australia is bogus because the drop started before their NFA (and their states had stricter laws to begin with). Europe had equally low murder rates before any gun controls, including UK. That means there is no compelling State interest.
Seriously, come back with a logically consistent argument.

[Glenn Vardy]

144. Cherry-picked?

You provided cherry picked references and even then... ignored, what it said.

What DO the references say? Here they are again:

Letters of Thomas Jefferson:
"You will there see that my objection to the constitution was that it wanted a bill of rights securing freedom of religion, freedom of the press, FREEDOM FROM STANDING ARMIES, trial by jury, & a constant Habeas corpus act... The sense of America has approved my objection & added the bill of rights."
-
"I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till after it was established. On receiving it I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, THE SUBSTITUTION OF MILITIA FOR A STANDING ARMY, and an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union. He accordingly moved in the first session of Congress for these amendments, which were agreed to and ratified by the States AS THEY NOW STAND."

Amendments Offered in Congress by James Madison June 8, 1789
"Fifthly... No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."

He wanted the individual rights in the proposed Bill of Rights to apply to the States. Why didn't he include the right to bear Arms? The man who WROTE the arms bearing proposal didn't consider it to be securing an individual right.

[gejohnston]

162. So?

He wanted the individual rights in the proposed Bill of Rights to apply to the States. Why didn't he include the right to bear Arms? The man who WROTE the arms bearing proposal didn't consider it to be securing an individual right.

have a seance and ask him. He also didn't say anything about voting, abortion, travel, privacy, or many other things that we know today are individual rights. That was the purpose of the all inclusive ninth amendment. Unless it is specifically stated something isn't a right, it is a right.

[Glenn Vardy]

164. STILL no straight answers

He also didn't say anything about voting, abortion, travel, privacy, or many other things that we know today are individual rights.

Where's the answer to my question? We're talking about the proposed amendments to the new constitution. Madison wanted the equal rights proposals to restrict the states as well as Congress. Why didn't he include the right to bear arms along with freedom of speech, religion and trial by jury?

[gejohnston]

167. that is a straight answer

That is the answer to the question. Have a seance and ask him. Just because it isn't the answer you want, doesn't mean it isn't a straight answer. As myself and several have explained to you several times, it doesn't matter if it is specifically mentioned or not. That is the purpose of the 9A.
You also failed to address the other "not mentioned". Like I pointed out, he didn't say anything about voting or abortion either. Your view is that since an individual right to arms was not specifically mentioned by Madison in this one discussion, it isn't protected. By logical extension, you are also saying there is no right to abortion or to vote either. Good luck with that in GD. They were talking only about limits on government, not individuals.
My guess is that you think your word games will trap someone into agreeing with your not very valid points. Everyone else figured it out already and decided they have better things to do.
The founders had this basic concept: all humans have rights simply because they exist. Those rights included guns for individuals. They never said individuals don't have that right. That means we do have the right.
How about actually reading some Locke and writings of the founders. Or, is it really about trying to push petty partisan points and a bullshit ideology.
perhaps start here
http://www.guncite.com/onething.html

Also, Jefferson, and I'm sure other founders, were familiar with the works of criminologist Cesare Beccaria
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation

[Glenn Vardy]

169. From 2A to 9A

Just because it isn't the answer you want, doesn't mean it isn't a straight answer... That is the purpose of the 9A.

My question was: "Why didn't he include the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS along with freedom of speech, religion and trial by jury" on the list of equal rights that he wanted to be secured against the States as well as Congress? THAT proposed amendment became the 2A. Your answer is that it doesn't matter because your right to own a gun is secured by the "9A." Changing the subject from what the Second Amendment secures to what the Ninth Amendment secures is NOT what I would call a "straight answer."

Anyway, would the Ninth Amendment have secured all individuals in all states the right to things which their state laws prohibited?

[gejohnston]

170. my question remains

why he didn't include abortion and voting. He said press, not speech.

Your answer is that it doesn't matter because your right to own a gun is secured by the "9A." Changing the subject from what the Second Amendment secures to what the Ninth Amendment secures is NOT what I would call a "straight answer."

Not at all. Your point seems to be the individual right doesn't exist.

Anyway, would the Ninth Amendment have secured all individuals in all states the right to things which their state laws prohibited?

Why wouldn't it be?
You don't give any answers when asked, you just come by to ask the same absurd questions with the same sources, and you don't even bother to learn anything about how the US system works or the philosophy behind it. That is intellectually lazy and boorish. It is also a waste of my time, because you obviously don't have any interest in actual discussion, just silly games.

[Glenn Vardy]

173. Continuous side-stepping

my question remains why he didn't include abortion and voting.

I answered that question in post #164. I said: "We're talking about the proposed amendments to the new constitution." And even if there was a proposed amendment on voting, Madison wouldn't have wanted the exact same system to be applied to each state.

I said:

Amendments Offered in Congress by James Madison June 8, 1789
"Fifthly... No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."

He wanted the individual rights IN THE PROPOSED BILL OF RIGHTS to apply to the States. Why didn't he include the right to bear Arms?

Your answer is that it doesn't matter because your right to own a gun is secured by the "9A." Changing the subject from what the Second Amendment secures to what the Ninth Amendment secures is NOT what I would call a "straight answer."

Not at all. Your point seems to be the individual right doesn't exist.

My point is that the purpose of the SECOND AMENDMENT isn't to secure an individual right to own a gun. I've already said that individual rights to own guns are secured in state constitutions.

I said:

Anyway, would the Ninth Amendment have secured all individuals in all states the right to things which their state laws prohibited?

Why wouldn't it be?

What do you mean by that? Just answer the simple question.

you obviously don't have any interest in actual discussion

By avoiding questions, you're not interested in nailing down facts in this discussion. I mean, you side stepped away from the 2nd to the 9th Amendment for your right to own a gun. So I addressed your point with a question about the 9th Amendment and you won't answer THAT. You side step to the subject of "philosophy."

[gejohnston]

174. not even close

My point is that the purpose of the SECOND AMENDMENT isn't to secure an individual right to own a gun. I've already said that individual rights to own guns are secured in state constitutions.

yet Constitutional scholars like Lawrence Tribe says it does, and he wants to ban all gun private ownership. You used a few state constitutions. Read the others. Also, the idea of banning personal guns was unthinkable at the time.
I'm not avoiding any question, I simply don't know the answer why Madison didn't mention guns, abortion, or voting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Your answer is that it doesn't matter because your right to own a gun is secured by the "9A." Changing the subject from what the Second Amendment secures to what the Ninth Amendment secures is NOT what I would call a "straight answer."

That isn't changing the subject. That is simply pointing out the absurdity of your overall argument.

What do you mean by that? Just answer the simple question.

that is the best answer to stupid question. All of the BoR protect individual rights. The 9A simply says "just because we didn't mention it, it doesn't mean it isn't protected either". If the speaker wanted the BoR to be incorporated against the states, that would obviously include the 9A.

[Glenn Vardy]

178. MORE side-stepping.

yet Constitutional scholars like Lawrence Tribe says...

Stick to what I'VE said.

You used a few state constitutions. Read the others.

I have. Only one contained the word "keep," and that was for the people to keep and bear arms for "the common defense." They're ALL militia provisions.

I simply don't know the answer why Madison didn't mention guns...

You do, but you don't want to accept the obvious reason. The purpose of the proposed amendment was not to secure an equal right to own guns.

The 9A simply says "just because we didn't mention it, it doesn't mean it isn't protected either". If the speaker wanted the BoR to be incorporated against the states, that would obviously include the 9A.

I've addressed that point by asking a question, but you avoided answering by saying it was a stupid question. Here is the question again: Would the Ninth Amendment have secured all individuals in all states the right to things which their state laws prohibited? It's a valid question.

[gejohnston]

179. you addressed nothing

Stick to what I'VE said.

Why stick to and seriously entertain illogical and uneducated assertions?

I have. Only one contained the word "keep," and that was for the people to keep and bear arms for "the common defense." They're ALL militia provisions.

no they don't. That has been pointed out in other posts.

I simply don't know the answer why Madison didn't mention guns...
You do, but you don't want to accept the obvious reason. The purpose of the proposed amendment was not to secure an equal right to own guns

You are assuming that you know what Madison was thinking. There is no scholarship to back up your claim.

I've addressed that point by asking a question, but you avoided answering by saying it was a stupid question. Here is the question again: Would the Ninth Amendment have secured all individuals in all states the right to things which their state laws prohibited? It's a valid question.

I did not not avoid the question. I answered as a polite way of saying "no shit Sherlock" of course it does.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

100. Please answer the question

The inability to answer the question relegates any position you favor irrelevant to anyone interested in a logical discussion.

Please give your definition of the term "right".

[Glenn Vardy]

112. The question is irrelevant.

Please give your definition of the term "right".

For what purpose? I've shown that COLLECTIVE rights exist and no definition of "right" can change that fact.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

175. Without the definition of "right"...

...claiming to have proven the existence of COLLECTIVE rights as opposed to or in addition to individual rights is rather meaningless. Further arguing that a given abstract (the RKBA) is a collective right rather than an individual right is rather like arguing whether some waste runoff is in a collective or an individual sewer without defining "sewer".

Your reasoning lacks foundation and is profoundly illogical.
Done now.

[Straw Man]

92. It's simple.

Most state Declaration of Rights contained provisions similar to this: "That a well regulated militia is the natural/proper defense of a free state/country/government; that standing armies are dangerous..."

Who did such rights belong to?

Those rights, as with all rights, belong to anyone and everyone, with the exception of those to whom they are expressly forbidden by common agreement of the sort sometimes known as "the social contract." I thought that much was clear from my post. I didn't think it was too hard to understand.

The provisions serve to explain why infringement of the natural and pre-existing right is undesirable or outright dangerous. They do not delineate a narrow set of conditions under which the right is to be "granted."

[Glenn Vardy]

93. Simple, but wrong.

Those rights, as with all rights, belong to anyone and everyone, with the exception of those to whom they are expressly forbidden by common agreement

This is nothing more than your OWN claim for which there is NO evidence to support. What about provisions which secured to the people the right to regulate the police? There's nothing in those enumerated rights which expressly forbids an individual from walking into the police station to implement his own set of regulations, is there? But the people in their collective and political capacity DO have the right to implement regulations. The people in their collective and political capacity also regulated their militia.

The provisions serve to explain why infringement of the natural and pre-existing right is.....

The provisions serve to explain? You talk gibberish!
Look, the evidence from Jefferson and Madison which I posted shows that NO kind of individual right was intended.

[Straw Man]

105. Fish aren't aware of the water they swim in.

It's just the atmosphere to them. You swim in an atmosphere of state power.

Those rights, as with all rights, belong to anyone and everyone, with the exception of those to whom they are expressly forbidden by common agreement

This is nothing more than your OWN claim for which there is NO evidence to support. What about provisions which secured to the people the right to regulate the police? There's nothing in those enumerated rights which expressly forbids an individual from walking into the police station to implement his own set of regulations, is there? But the people in their collective and political capacity DO have the right to implement regulations. The people in their collective and political capacity also regulated their militia.

My claim? It's the essence of Enlightenment political theory. I wasn't around then, so I can't claim credit for it.

The people in their "collective and political capacity" can and do regulate police, militias, et al. If they didn't have the individual rights of suffrage, free speech, free assembly, and the like, it would be difficult or impossible to exercise said regulation: hence the protections offered by the enumerated rights.

Let's put this another way: the individual right is protected so that the common goal can be achieved. The existence of the right is not contingent upon the nature of the goal. If I said that citizens should have the right of access to government data so that they may become better-informed voters, would you claim that people who do not vote should be denied access to that data? I would hope not.

The provisions serve to explain why infringement of the natural and pre-existing right is.....

The provisions serve to explain? You talk gibberish!
Look, the evidence from Jefferson and Madison which I posted shows that NO kind of individual right was intended.

Just because you don't understand something, that doesn't mean it is "gibberish."

[Glenn Vardy]

113. "Enlightened political theory" Lol

It's the essence of Enlightenment political theory

What, that if the people, in their collective and political capacity have the right to regulate the police in their Declaration of Rights, all individual citizens have the right to walk into a police station to regulate them UNLESS it's expressly forbidden? Like I said, you talk gibberish.

[Straw Man]

115. Not "enlightened" -- "Englightenment"

The Enlightenment, otherwise known as the Age of Reason:

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/thenineteenthcentury/a/enlightenment.htm

Of particular relevance are the theories of John Locke:

http://www.johnlocke.org/about/who_is_john_locke.html

What, that if the people, in their collective and political capacity have the right to regulate the police in their Declaration of Rights, all individual citizens have the right to walk into a police station to regulate them UNLESS it's expressly forbidden? Like I said, you talk gibberish.

Individuals most certainly have the right to disseminate opinions, organize, and advocate for police reform. Those are the individual rights that must be protected if the collective right is to have any teeth.

Educate yourself, my friend, before you accuse others of gibberish.

[Glenn Vardy]

120. Relevance

Individuals most certainly have the right to disseminate opinions, organize, and advocate for police reform....

But that's not the right to walk into a police station to implement their own set of regulations unless expressly forbidden.

Of particular relevance are the theories of John Locke:

If you want relevance to the purpose of the Second Amendment, go to post #74 and address the points made and answer the questions asked.

[Straw Man]

142. You're missing the point by miles.

Individuals most certainly have the right to disseminate opinions, organize, and advocate for police reform....

But that's not the right to walk into a police station to implement their own set of regulations unless expressly forbidden.

Of course not -- because the formulation and application of public policy are collective, not individual, functions. I have already explained to you how collective functions are predicated on the existence of individual rights. I don't know why you can't see the connection. I thought the explanation was very clear.

Of particular relevance are the theories of John Locke:

If you want relevance to the purpose of the Second Amendment, go to post #74 and address the points made and answer the questions asked.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to assure that the individual right to keep and bear arms was not infringed, because if it had been, the states would have been unable to raise a citizen militia. This is not to say that that right existed only for the purpose of raising the militia, and that in the absence of a militia that right could be curtailed. Your fixation on the militia argument suggests that you deny the validity of any individual right that doesn't serve a collective function. I strongly disagree.

[Glenn Vardy]

143. "Of course not" = No.

Of course not -- because the formulation and application of public policy are collective, not individual, functions. I have already explained to you how collective functions are predicated on the existence of individual rights."

When you say "of course not," you mean that those rights were COLLECTIVE and individuals could NOT exercises them unless "expressly" prevented from doing so in the provision. So, now you can answer the question. Who did THESE rights belong to? And remember, you cannot answer that they belong to every individual unless expressly forbidden.

DELAWARE (September 11, 1776)
18. That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.

MARYLAND (November 11, 1776)
XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.

NEW HAMPSHIRE (June 2, 1784)
XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.

Also, have a look at this:

VIRGINIA (June 12, 1776)
13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided,..."

Let's discuss what is meant by "the people" in this enumerated right. Does this mean that a well regulated militia composed of every individual is the natural defense of the state? No. It simply means that the militia shall be drawn from the people in preference to the full time soldiers of a standing army, which should "be avoided." There's no reason to believe that provisions securing the right of "the People to keep and bear Arms" means anything different.

[Straw Man]

155. You seem to be very confused ...

... between individual rights, which are natural and universal according to Enlightenment theories, and the collective rights of political entities. There is no such thing as a "natural right" for a political entity, since political entities are social constructions. Political entities can grant political rights to collective entities, but they cannot "grant" rights to individuals, since individual rights, being natural, predate the political entity. Political entities can only recognize and seek to protect those natural rights.

When you say "of course not," you mean that those rights were COLLECTIVE and individuals could NOT exercises them unless "expressly" prevented from doing so in the provision.

Umm... please parse this. I think you may have a problem with subject/verb agreement and the placement of the negative. Try again, and perhaps your meaning will become clear.

So, now you can answer the question. Who did THESE rights belong to? And remember, you cannot answer that they belong to every individual unless expressly forbidden.

Individuals cannot function as political bodies. Political systems define their constituent parts and grant them certain rights and responsibilities within the system. Enlightenment political theories, such as the ones under which our political system was constituted, seek to defend certain individual, inviolable, and inalienable rights against any potential tyranny by political entities. It's a balancing act and a symbiotic relationship. The nature of political bodies is to amass power, and in so doing, they become potential oppressors. The Founding Fathers sought to protect our political system against such an eventuality.

I as an individual do not have the right to declare war against a foreign power. That right is delegated to the Congress in our system. It is a collective right of that particular body. I do have to the right to vote for members of Congress and to gather information and disseminate opinions on their performance. Those individual rights must be protected if the Congress is to continue to be representative of the people's will.

I do not have the individual right to raise a militia and take it to war. That right was granted to political entities by political entities. I do have the individual right to keep and bear arms, which the Second Amendment protected against infringement specifically to enable the militia. This is another case balancing the rights of the individual with the rights of collective entities. It is "the right of the people," not "the right of the state." However, it is a mistake to think that without the militia the right is forfeit, just as it is a mistake to think that people who don't vote should forfeit their right to free speech and free access to information.

The more you empower political entities and disempower the individual, the closer you get to totalitarianism. That's what the Founding Fathers sought to prevent. That's what you seem to be in a hurry to embrace.

[Glenn Vardy]

163. Misdirection, smoke and mirrors

DELAWARE (September 11, 1776)
18. That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.

MARYLAND (November 11, 1776)
XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.

NEW HAMPSHIRE (June 2, 1784)
XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.

I posted these provisions from state Declaration of Rights and asked who these rights belonged to. The answer is: they belong to the people in their collective capacity. Simple. But THIS is what 'Straw Man' replied with:

You seem to be very confused between individual rights, which are natural and universal according to Enlightenment theories, and the collective rights of political entities. There is no such thing as a "natural right" for a political entity, since political entities are social constructions. Political entities can grant political rights to collective entities, but they cannot "grant" rights to individuals, since individual rights, being natural, predate the political entity. Political entities can only recognize and seek to protect those natural rights.

Individuals cannot function as political bodies. Political systems define their constituent parts and grant them certain rights and responsibilities within the system. Enlightenment political theories, such as the ones under which our political system was constituted, seek to defend certain individual, inviolable, and inalienable rights against any potential tyranny by political entities. It's a balancing act and a symbiotic relationship. The nature of political bodies is to amass power, and in so doing, they become potential oppressors. The Founding Fathers sought to protect our political system against such an eventuality.

I as an individual do not have the right to declare war against a foreign power. That right is delegated to the Congress in our system. It is a collective right of that particular body. I do have to the right to vote for members of Congress and to gather information and disseminate opinions on their performance. Those individual rights must be protected if the Congress is to continue to be representative of the people's will.

I do not have the individual right to raise a militia and take it to war. That right was granted to political entities by political entities. I do have the individual right to keep and bear arms, which the Second Amendment protected against infringement specifically to enable the militia. This is another case balancing the rights of the individual with the rights of collective entities. It is "the right of the people," not "the right of the state." However, it is a mistake to think that without the militia the right is forfeit, just as it is a mistake to think that people who don't vote should forfeit their right to free speech and free access to information.

The more you empower political entities and disempower the individual, the closer you get to totalitarianism. That's what the Founding Fathers sought to prevent. That's what you seem to be in a hurry to embrace.

It's all misdirection, smoke and mirrors.

Is your answer to my simple question that those rights belonged to "political entities?" What words are used to refer to these entities?

[Straw Man]

165. I've been very clear.

Is your answer to my simple question that those rights belonged to "political entities?" What words are used to refer to these entities?

Different entities have different names: the state, the government, etc. The key is the distinction between the functions of those entities and the protection of individual rights. The militia is a political entity. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Without an armed citizenry, there cannot be a citizen army. The citizen army, or "militia" was the goal. The right is described as belonging to "the people," not to state governments.

The smoke is in your mind.

[Glenn Vardy]

168. The deceiver.

Different entities have different names

You're still avoiding the questions. You're smart, but you're dishonest and you're deliberately trying to deceive the public about the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment. Never mind "different" entities. Who do THOSE rights belong to? "Political entities?" If so, what words are used to refer to THOSE entities?

[Straw Man]

171. What kind of game are you playing?

I'm not avoiding any questions. I'm answering you in laborious detail, and you are having hissy fits because you're not getting the answer you want. Too bad, pal. You want me to say that the right to keep and bear arms belongs only to the militia, and I won't say it because it is incorrect. The right is protected in order to facilitate a militia, but a militia is not and never has been the sine qua non for the right to keep and bear arms. The right to provide for one's own defense is a natural right. The formation of militias is the function of a political entity. Citizen militias require an armed citizenry. There the individual and the collective interests intersect, plain and simple.

I can't make it any plainer. I suspect that you understand my point and are pretending not to, but if you truly don't understand, then I suggest that you're playing in a sandbox that's a bit above your pay grade.

"Dishonest" my ass.

[Glenn Vardy]

172. Yet MORE misdirection from Straw Man

You want me to say that the right to keep and bear arms belongs only to the militia, and I won't say it because it is incorrect.

You're right, these rights DON'T belong to the militia. But I haven't SAID that they belong to the militia and you know it. Again, you're trying to hide the existence of COLLECTIVE rights of the people with misdirection, smoke and mirrors. This is what I posted.

DELAWARE (September 11, 1776)
18. That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.

MARYLAND (November 11, 1776)
XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.

NEW HAMPSHIRE (June 2, 1784)
XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.

I posted these provisions from state Declaration of Rights and asked who these rights belonged to. The answer is: they belong to the people in their collective capacity. Simple. But THIS is what 'Straw Man' replied with:

So, you can't make an argument against those rights belonging to THE PEOPLE in their COLLECTIVE capacity, but you CAN make an argument against those rights belonging "to the militia." That's why you've introduced this 'straw man' argument which I'm NOT making.

I'm not avoiding any questions. I'm answering you in laborious detail

You ARE avoiding the questions. "Who do these rights belong to?" does NOT require a laborious reply.

[Straw Man]

180. Smoke and mirrors.

You're right, these rights DON'T belong to the militia. But I haven't SAID that they belong to the militia and you know it.

Do you remember saying this?

The Second Amendment is a militia amendment.

-- http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=154732

Apparently you don't.

So, you can't make an argument against those rights belonging to THE PEOPLE in their COLLECTIVE capacity, but you CAN make an argument against those rights belonging "to the militia." That's why you've introduced this 'straw man' argument which I'm NOT making.

For fuck's sake, what is the militia if not "THE PEOPLE in their COLLECTIVE capacity"? It's called "abstract thought." Perhaps you've heard of it.

[Glenn Vardy]

190. The unanswered question

DELAWARE (September 11, 1776)
18. That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.

MARYLAND (November 11, 1776)
XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.

NEW HAMPSHIRE (June 2, 1784)
XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.

Who do these rights belong to, Straw Man?

[Straw Man]

193. Oh, so you want to play guessing games ...

DELAWARE (September 11, 1776)
18. That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.

MARYLAND (November 11, 1776)
XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.

NEW HAMPSHIRE (June 2, 1784)
XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.

Who do these rights belong to, Straw Man?

I don't know. The state? A free government? You tell me. And while you're at it, could you please respond to my last post? Common decency would dictate that you stop dodging questions before you accuse others of doing the same. Do you or do you not believe the Second Amendment to be "a militia amendment," as you posted above? Answer the question: good faith demands it.

[Glenn Vardy]

196. Your answer. What now?

DELAWARE (September 11, 1776)
18. That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.

MARYLAND (November 11, 1776)
XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.

NEW HAMPSHIRE (June 2, 1784)
XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.

Who do these rights belong to, Straw Man?

I don't know. The state? A free government? You tell me.

It's the one you're avoiding, the people in their collective capacity.

Do you or do you not believe the Second Amendment to be "a militia amendment," as you posted above?

Yes. Do I believe the right belongs to the militia? No, it belongs to the people in their collective capacity. The same goes for the provisions above and every other arms bearing provision at that time. You trying to force me to say these rights belonged to the militia is akin to me saying that you believe gun rights belong to guns.

[Straw Man]

209. So let me get this straight.

Yes. Do I believe the right belongs to the militia? No, it belongs to the people in their collective capacity.

So you believe that the militia is not a manifestation of "the people in their collective capacity"? Is that what you're trying to say?

You claim that the amendment is there to enable militia service and grants the right to "the people" collectively but not individually. Yet you claim that the right does not "belong" to the militia. So if militia service is not the sine qua non of the right to keep and bear arms, what is the purpose of this "collective" right?

Again, I must question whether you are capable of abstract thought.

[Glenn Vardy]

213. I've been clear

So you believe that the militia is not a manifestation of "the people in their collective capacity"? Is that what you're trying to say?

I've been clear. Those right's belonged to "the people" in their collective capacity. They didn't belong to the militia OR the individuals which composed the militia.

You claim that the amendment is there to enable militia service and grants the right to "the people" collectively....

I'm talking about the provisions I posted from state Declaration of Rights. Those rights came from the people who framed their constitutions.

....So if militia service is not the sine qua non of the right to keep and bear arms, what is the purpose of this "collective" right?

The purpose of those provisions was to ensure that the state security force was drawn from amongst themselves because standing armies were considered dangerous. The Second Amendment assured the continuation of those forces.

[Straw Man]

217. No, you haven't.

Perhaps you have been clear to yourself in you own mind, you have, but not in what you've expressed on here.

The purpose of those provisions was to ensure that the state security force was drawn from amongst themselves because standing armies were considered dangerous. The Second Amendment assured the continuation of those forces.

"Amonsgst themselves"? And who precisely are "they" to whom you refer?

All you offer is references from documents that don't mention "collective capacity" but repeatedly refer to the militia. Nothing you have said offers historical support for your contentions. Your argument boils down to "it's collective and not individual because I say so."

Next?

[Glenn Vardy]

220. "They?"

And who precisely are "they" to whom you refer?

I didn't use the word "they."

[Straw Man]

222. Yes, "they."

And who precisely are "they" to whom you refer?

I didn't use the word "they."

You used the reflexive form "themselves." In order for there to be a "themselves," there must be a "they."

C'mon, man. This is basic stuff.

[Glenn Vardy]

226. Let's play word games.

You used the reflexive form "themselves." In order for there to be a "themselves," there must be a "they"

And "they" are individuals? You're bonkers.

This is what I said: "The purpose of those provisions was to ensure that the state security force was drawn from amongst themselves because standing armies were considered dangerous. The Second Amendment assured the continuation of those forces."

[Straw Man]

230. No, let's be clear.

"The purpose of those provisions was to ensure that the state security force was drawn from amongst themselves because standing armies were considered dangerous. The Second Amendment assured the continuation of those forces."

You still haven't identified who "they" are. I never said "they" were individuals, although it certainly is semantically possible since "individual" has a plural form, which you used yourself.

Or are you maintaining that the pronoun "they" can only be used in a collective sense? I, and most lexicographers, would heartily disagree.

Word games? I'm the one who's asking for clarity here, and you're the one who is failing to provide it.

[Glenn Vardy]

235. Individual right to a well regulated militia?

You still haven't identified who "they" are

Look, you asked me for the purpose of those provisions. I answered: "The purpose of those provisions was to ensure that the state security force was drawn from amongst themselves because standing armies were considered dangerous. The Second Amendment assured the continuation of those forces."

You know what I meant by "themselves," so why are you asking me to identify who "they" are? The people consists of individuals and the individuals who QUALIFIED for militia service would be required to serve. Oh look... I said the word "individuals" so those militia provisions MUST be securing a right for ALL individuals to form a well regulated militia. Is that where you're taking this?

[Straw Man]

244. Nope.

Last edited Tue Oct 28, 2014, 01:18 AM - Edit history (1)

"The purpose of those provisions was to ensure that the state security force was drawn from amongst themselves because standing armies were considered dangerous. The Second Amendment assured the continuation of those forces."

You know what I meant by "themselves," so why are you asking me to identify who "they" are? The people consists of individuals and the individuals who QUALIFIED for militia service would be required to serve. Oh look... I said the word "individuals" so those militia provisions MUST be securing a right for ALL individuals to form a well regulated militia. Is that where you're taking this?

I most assuredly do not know what you meant by "themselves." Your sentence has two possible antecedents -- "purpose" and "provisions" -- neither of which is a living, breathing soul capable of military service. ("The state security force" is not a possible antecedent: "The state security force was drawn from amongst the state security force" is nonsense.) So I ask again: Who is indicated by "themselves"? The states? The people thereof?

I'm not "taking this" anywhere, and I never suggested that the amendment empowers individuals to form their own militias. That's a straw man of your own making. What I have suggested, and will continue to suggest, is that the amendment, in the spirit of its time, recognized the individual right to arms as an important safeguard against potential tyranny. "Rights of man," and all that. Not "rights of the people in their collective capacity" -- that suggests a totalitarian nightmare.

[Glenn Vardy]

246. Bobbing and weaving

I most assuredly do not know what you meant by "themselves."

I meant that the purpose of those provisions was to ensure that the state security force was "composed of the body of the people (of those states) capable of bearing arms" because standing armies were considered dangerous. Are you going to pretend that you don't understand this, too?

I'm not "taking this" anywhere

Then make a start. I've said who those rights belonged to and what the purpose of those provisions was. Have you? No, you won't.

I never suggested that the amendment empowers individuals to form their own militias.

Why haven't you suggested what those provisions do or what the purpose of them is?

"rights of the people in their collective capacity" -- that suggests a totalitarian nightmare.

But that's just your paranoia. Your paranoia about collective rights does NOT mean that those provisions aren't securing collective rights.

Of course, you could dip your toe in and say who those rights belong to. But you can't because you know there will be follow-up questions on what you say. If I ask a question which requires a "yes" or "no" answer, you won't answer with "No, because" or "Yes, but," you'll come straight back with "Because..." and add an assertion unconnected the question.

...the amendment, in the spirit of its time, recognized the individual right to arms...

THERE IT IS. That's an example of what I say above. We're discussing those state provisions, but you side step to "the amendment" and make an assertion about what the Second Amendment recognized.

[Straw Man]

250. Oh, come on.

Last edited Tue Oct 28, 2014, 01:36 PM - Edit history (1)

I most assuredly do not know what you meant by "themselves."

I meant that the purpose of those provisions was to ensure that the state security force was "composed of the body of the people (of those states) capable of bearing arms" because standing armies were considered dangerous. Are you going to pretend that you don't understand this, too?

I'm not "pretending" anything. Your wording was vague and unclear.

I'm not "taking this" anywhere

Then make a start. I've said who those rights belonged to and what the purpose of those provisions was. Have you? No, you won't.

We agree that the purpose was to enable a militia. I've stated that I believe the underlying right (to keep and bear arms) to be individual and you have stated that you believe it to be purely collective. In so doing, you have selectively ignored any evidence that doesn't support your contention. Certainly both views were held at the time, so the selective quoting game in no way serves the interest of truth.

I never suggested that the amendment empowers individuals to form their own militias.

Why haven't you suggested what those provisions do or what the purpose of them is?

Answered above. I have suggested it, repeatedly. Since no one but ourselves could possibly be reading this anymore, consider this a personal rather than a rhetorical question: Why are you pretending I haven't?

"rights of the people in their collective capacity" -- that suggests a totalitarian nightmare.

But that's just your paranoia. Your paranoia about collective rights does NOT mean that those provisions aren't securing collective rights.

Collective rights at the expense of individual ones represent a totalitarian trend. Imagine if I said that the right of free speech should be only collective and that one should have to join a political party to exercise it. Political platforms are all well and good, but they should not subsume the right to individual self-expression. Apply the same logic to state militias and individual self-defense, and you'll see where I stand.

Of course, you could dip your toe in and say who those rights belong to. But you can't because you know there will be follow-up questions on what you say. If I ask a question which requires a "yes" or "no" answer, you won't answer with "No, because" or "Yes, but," you'll come straight back with "Because..." and add an assertion unconnected the question.

You don't get to dictate the terms of the discourse, chum. Any time I see fit to unload your loaded questions, I will do so. My assertions are directly connected to the topic. Again, what diversionary game are you playing? I've been very clear, and if you fail to understand me (not agree with me, but understand me), then that's on you.

...the amendment, in the spirit of its time, recognized the individual right to arms...

THERE IT IS. That's an example of what I say above. We're discussing those state provisions, but you side step to "the amendment" and make an assertion about what the Second Amendment recognized.

Cut the bullshit. All this discussion of state provisions is in the context of the meaning of the Second Amendment. That's the topic of this entire thread. Apparently you've forgotten that.

[sarisataka]

114. Thomas Jefferson-

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."

Sounds like Mr. Jefferson believed in people able to own arms as individuals

As for Mr. Madison-

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

I believe the same thoughts ran in his mind

[Glenn Vardy]

122. No bearing on purpose of Second Amendment

Jefferson was referring directly to the Second Amendment in the quotes I posted. The quotes you've posted shed no light on the purpose of the Second Amendment. Jefferson clearly saw the Second Amendment as a Militia Amendment even if he enjoyed walking with his gun.

[sarisataka]

123. As a militia amendent

it only opposes, and it clear from their words , having a standing army. They much preferred a citizen's militia.

Nothing that you have posted supports the notion that only the States should have access to arms rather than the individual. The writings I posted show they clearly though that individuals should have access to arms. I would be most interested in any quote from the writers of the BoR that states individuals should not have the right to own arms.

Consider again this from Mr. Jefferson

"On every occasion let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

[Glenn Vardy]

166. Squeezing out of the text

They much preferred a citizen's militia.

True. The Second Amendment is a militia amendment.

The writings I posted show they clearly thought that individuals should have access to arms.

For his state constitution, Jefferson proposed a right for property owners only to use arms on their own land only. Does this mean that he thought that all individuals should have the right to own and use guns anywhere in his state? NO. And that's not what he thought the new US Constitution needed to protect when he wrote to Madison.

Consider again this from Mr. Jefferson "On every occasion let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Who's trying to squeeze a right to own a gun from a debate where there isn't the slightest hint that they're discussing gun ownership?

[Straw Man]

194. The slightest hint?

Who's trying to squeeze a right to own a gun from a debate where there isn't the slightest hint that they're discussing gun ownership?

Oh, I don't know. I would imagine that the clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" has something to do with gun ownership. Wouldn't you?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

124. Even if we accept your erroneous interpretation that would still make the 2A addressed to the people

There can be no militia unless the people have ready access to arms. The government does not supply arms to the people who comprise the militia, the people supply their own arms and it is from among that body of armed citizens the militia is called forth.

[Glenn Vardy]

128. Proposal reaches the Congress.

As I've already shown, Madison did NOT consider the militia amendment to be securing a right for all individuals to own guns. The following is the debate when the proposal reached the Congress. Are they discussing a right for all individuals to own military type weapons ONLY for defense of hearth and home? That's what Scalia & Co ruled. You decide.
--------------------------

The Congressional Register, 17 August 1789

The house went into a committee of the whole, on the subject of amendments. The 3d clause of the 4th proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows; "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 person, religiously scrupulous, shall be compelled to bear arms.

Mr. Gerry — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government; if we could suppose that in all cases the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now it must be evident, that under this provision, together with their other powers, congress could take such measures ith respect to a militia, as make a standing army necessary. Whenever government mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishement of an effective militia to the eastward. The assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making, to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia, but they were always defeated by the influence of the crown.

Mr. Seney — Wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking?

Mr. Gerry — Replied, that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they stood. He then proceeded, No attempts that they made, were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thralldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head; for this reason he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect, scrupulous of bearing arms.

Mr. Jackson — Did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians, consequently one part would have to defend the other, in case of invasion; now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the consitution secured an equivalent, for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it "upon paying an equivalent to be established by law."

Mr. Smith, (of S.C.) — Enquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment; if the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him: He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.

Mr. Jackson — Was willing to accommodate; he thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person, upon paying an equivalent."

Mr. Sherman — Conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well-known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent; many of them would rather die than do either one or the other — but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary government, said he, and the states respectively will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; beside, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of this society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least while it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.

Mr. Vining — Hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it as amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.

Mr. Stone — Enquired what the words "Religiously scrupulous" had reference to, was it of bearing arms? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.

Mr. Benson — Moved to have the words "But no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the legislature — for, modify it, said he, as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the judiciary, on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not? It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals. I have no reason to believe but the legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of, but they ought to be left to their discretion.

The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative, 22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.

Mr. Gerry — Objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed: a well-regulated militia being the best security of a free state, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read "a well regulated militia, trained to arms," in which case it would become the duty of the government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported, which being adopted.

Mr. Burke — Proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace, is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in tim of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both houses, and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.

Mr. Vining — Asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself? If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the house had referred the report specially to the committee of the whole.

Mr. Burke — Feared that what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.

Mr. Hartley — Thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion of it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole union.

The question on mr. Burke's motion was put, and lost by a majority of 13.

AUGUST 20, 1789

Mr. SCOTT objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He said, if this becomes part of the constitution, we can neither call upon such persons for services nor an equivalent; it is attended with still further difficulties, for you can never depend upon your militia. This will lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, as in this case you must have recourse to a standing army. I conceive it is a matter of legislative right altogether. I know there are many sects religiously scrupulous in this respect: I am not for abridging them of any indulgence by law; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It is said that religion is on the decline; if this is the case, it is an argument in my favour; for when the time comes that there is no religion, persons will more generally have recourse to these pretexts to get excused.

Mr. BOUDINOT said that the provision in the clause or something like it appeared to be necessary. What dependence can be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? Or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, if they are honest men, they would rather die than use them. He then adverted to several instances of oppression in the case which occurred during the [revolutionary] war. In forming a militia we ought to calculate for an effectual defence, and not compel characters of this description to bear arms. I wish that in establishing this government we may be careful to let every person know that we will not interfere with any person's particular religious profession. If we strike out this clause, we shall lead such persons to conclude that we mean to compel them to bear arms.

Mr. VINING and Mr. JACKSON spake upon the question. The words 'in person' were added after the word 'arms', and the amendment was adopted.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

129. It's kind looking, from the passge you have cited, that individual liberty is the issue at hand.

Mr. Gerry — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government; if we could suppose that in all cases the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now it must be evident, that under this provision, together with their other powers, congress could take such measures ith respect to a militia, as make a standing army necessary. Whenever government mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishement of an effective militia to the eastward. The assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making, to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia, but they were always defeated by the influence of the crown.

The rest of the debate centers on whether there would be a religious conscience exemption and whether a specific clause be included referring to the dangers of a standing army. The latter was struck on procedural grounds.

[Glenn Vardy]

136. But not the "liberty" to own a gun?

It's kind looking, from the passge you have cited, that individual liberty is the issue at hand.

There's no reference to individuals in that passage except for when he talks about "those religiously scrupulous" being prevented from "bearing arms." Quakers had no problem with "carrying guns," but they DID have a problem with "military service" where they'd might be expected to kill other human beings.

The rest of the debate centers on whether there would be a religious conscience exemption..

Exemption from WHAT? Owning guns for defense of hearth and home? I bet the debate on freedom of religion had reference to the freedom of religion. Why is there no reference to gun ownership in this debate? It's all militia, militia militia from the moment it reaches the floor of the house. IT'S A MILITIA AMENDMENT. Look at this from the passage that you quote: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army." Then compare that with how Jefferson described the Second Amendment: "the substitution of militia for a standing army."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

140. The passage -- which was selected by you and is not the totality of the debate -- deals with

religious exemption from militia service. However, you yourself note --

Quakers had no problem with "carrying guns," but they DID have a problem with "military service" where they'd might be expected to kill other human beings.

The debate was never about: should people be allowed to own guns; but rather: to what purpose. Nowhere in your selected passage -- or in any other -- can it be shown that the sole purpose of keeping arms was service to the government. Considering the nature of the War of Independence, giving heel to the government was never high on their principles. The Battle of Lexington, wherein the war was first engaged, was over an attempt by the Crown to seize weapons from the people.

As I stated elsewhere: If there was to be a militia then the people must have free access to arms. The militia was not supplied by the government; the people brought their own arms when called up.

Then, you also have the matter of the various state constitutions. Even if you struck the 2A from the federal constitution the various states have enshrined the RKBA, many of them explicitly noting that it is an individual right.

Why is there no reference to gun ownership in this debate?

Because they were debating various aspects of the amendment. You can't seriously be suggesting this debate was the sole extent of the matter and since it doesn't mention gun ownership. Your selected passage proves nothing, one way or another. From what I can tell you selected it simply because it does not mention the issue and you, in turn, make that to be some sort of final declaration.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;

-- Thomas Jefferson; correspondence to John Cartwright, 1824.

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...

-- George Mason

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

-- James Madison; Federalist Papers, No. 46.

[Glenn Vardy]

145. Selected passage?

The debate was never about: should people be allowed to own guns; but rather: to what purpose.

They're not discussing gun ownership, period. Don't you think that's a tiny bit odd IF they're discussing a fundamental right to own a gun? Is there the slightest hint that the "purpose" is the defense of hearth and home?

Nowhere in your selected passage -- or in any other -- can it be shown that the sole purpose of keeping arms was service...

Firstly, I didn't post a selected passage, I posted the whole of the recorded debate from the moment the proposal reached the floor of Congress. Secondly, you're right, there's nothing in the debate which means "this proposal isn't intended to secure a right for all individuals to guns." Does this mean that it must be protecting a right for individuals to own guns? No. The number of things it doesn't say is endless.

Then, you also have the matter of the various state constitutions. Even if you struck the 2A from the federal constitution the various states have enshrined the RKBA, many of them explicitly noting that it is an individual right.

State constitutions are a different matter. And I'm not trying to repeal the Second Amendment, I just want it's INTENDED meaning/purpose to be understood.

[Glenn Vardy]

160. Mason quote in context

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...

-- George Mason

At least you've left enough of this quote to get the proper context.
By "disarm the people," Mason means: by neglecting the militia and allowing it to "sink gradually."
When he says "except a few public officers," he meant that they would be excused from bearing arms.
When he says that the militia consists of the "whole people," he didn't mean "all individuals," he meant it was drawn from "all classes."

".....Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to MILITIA DUTY."

[Glenn Vardy]

161. At all times armed

We established however some, although not all its important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;

-- Thomas Jefferson; correspondence to John Cartwright, 1824.

All power is inherent in the collective BODY of the people. If most state constitutions asserted that all individuals had a duty to ALWAYS carry a gun around with them wherever they went, post just one example. It's a reference to the militia.

[sarisataka]

130. Seems a debate about how individual rights

may affect the workings and duties of government

Mr. Gerry — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government; if we could suppose that in all cases the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.

Mr. Gerry — Objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed: a well-regulated militia being the best security of a free state, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read "a well regulated militia, trained to arms," in which case it would become the duty of the government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

Mr. SCOTT objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He said, if this becomes part of the constitution, we can neither call upon such persons for services nor an equivalent; it is attended with still further difficulties, for you can never depend upon your militia. This will lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, as in this case you must have recourse to a standing army. I conceive it is a matter of legislative right altogether. I know there are many sects religiously scrupulous in this respect: I am not for abridging them of any indulgence by law; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It is said that religion is on the decline; if this is the case, it is an argument in my favour; for when the time comes that there is no religion, persons will more generally have recourse to these pretexts to get excused.

[Glenn Vardy]

137. It just isn't there.

Seems a debate about how individual rights may affect the workings and duties of government

The only time individual right's are mentioned is when the matter of being EXCUSED from bearing arms is mentioned.

intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government

And not to secure a right to own guns?" Why isn't anybody saying it?

if this becomes part of the constitution, we can neither call upon such persons for services nor an equivalent; it is attended with still further difficulties, for you can never depend upon your militia. This will lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, as in this case you must have recourse to a standing army.

He doesn't want anyone to be able to get excused from bearing arms (military service) because you wouldn't be able to depend on the militia if everyone was excused or prevented from serving. How would having an undependable militia lead to the the violation of an individual right to own an arm? To Mr Scott, the people are keeping arms when they have a MILITIA that can be depended on, not when individuals "keep" guns.

[sarisataka]

139. At the basis of a Liberal Democracy:

For the individual that which is not forbidden is permitted.

For the government that which is not expressly permitted is reserved to the people

secures to the people the right of keeping arms

They {the government} can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms

The only time individual right's are mentioned is when the matter of being EXCUSED from bearing arms is mentioned.

Correct- the discussion is of when citizens may be excused (or prohibited) from bearing arms. The assumption is that citizens are allowed to bear arms unless somehow proscribed by personal choice or "mal-administration of the government"

[Glenn Vardy]

146. Assumption

The assumption is that citizens are allowed to bear arms unless somehow proscribed by personal choice or "mal-administration of the government"

Assumption? You're assuming, that they're assuming, that the right being secured is for all individual citizens to carry guns. But, as I said, Quakers had no problem with "carrying guns," but they DID have a problem with "military service." So they're not even discussing a right for individuals to "carry guns," let alone own them.

[sarisataka]

147. Yes

So they're not even discussing a right for individuals to "carry guns," let alone own them

the ownership was assumed-

axiomatic
adj. understood; aphoristic
absolute
accepted
aphoristic
apothegmatic
assumed
certain
fundamental
given
indubitable
manifest
obvious
presupposed
proverbial
self-evident
unquestioned

[Glenn Vardy]

148. C-A-R-R-Y-I-N-G

the ownership was....

But I addressed what YOU were saying about the CARRYING of guns. You side-step my point by saying that OWNERSHIP was assumed.

Quakers had no problem with "carrying guns," but they DID have a problem with "military service." So they're not even discussing a right for individuals to "carry guns," let alone own them. Address THAT point.

[sarisataka]

149. Why do you keep changing your point?

you have already answered your own question

The debate is about who can serve in the militia.
-it was understood ownership was a right of the people- as individuals (keep)
-it was understood carrying was a right of the people- as individuals (and bear)
-it was known some individuals had religious beliefs that would prevent them from being effective militia members- as individuals (a well regulated militia)
-it was feared a future government would try to use the religious exemption clause to decide who is "religiously scrupulous" therefore deny their right to bear arms or serve in the militia (shall not be abridged)

The Amendment is protecting a right of the States, or collective right if you wish, to have a trained, effective militia-

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

It protects that State right but enumerating the individual right-

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

Removed was the provision that could become a loophole to abridge the State and individual rights by the Federal government declaring who is religiously unqualified to bear arms. If you read carefully, their concern was atheism. The writers knew atheism was growing and at some point could actually become a majority. If a fundamentalist Government declared atheists to be religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, it would allow the Federal government to destroy the State militias; thus giving the Federal government all military power.

but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person

I have little doubt Madison and Jefferson would find our current military system an abomination and likely weep at how much power the Federal government has over the States.

[jimmy the one]

150. jefferson was not advising a gun for protection

sari/ Jefferson: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

JEFFERSON IS NOT ADVISING CARRYING THE GUN FOR PROTECTION. This was a letter from Jefferson to his nephew at college. Jeff is advising his nephew to carry a gun for exercise enhancement, perhaps the added weight built up muscle in his opinion, like a modern day bar bell program.
Nowhere in his lengthy letter does jeff say that the gun aids in thwarting criminal activity, why not? He says 'boldness to the mind' as youre carrying a gun, duh, maybe be careful someone might steal it.

[sarisataka]

151. Don't see where I made any claim

That the gun was carried for preventing crime...

It was pointing out that the right to keep and bear arms was always considered an individual right.

I would ask were does he say go to the miltia to get the gun or walk with your militia, and why not?

He says 'boldness to the mind' as youre carrying a gun, duh, maybe be careful someone might steal it

That makes as much sense as telling a person to walk everywhere with a large sum of cash in their hand to encourage boldness of the mind.

P.S. why not post the Sergeant at Arms topic here where it will be discussed?

[jimmy the one]

152. quotes prove little

sarisataka: Jefferson-- "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

Comports fine with the militia interpretation.

sari/jeff: To Giovanni Fabbroni June 8, 1778 SIR, -- Your letter of Sep. 15. 1777 from Paris comes safe to hand. I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence..... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.

Obviously Jefferson is embellishing here, shouldn't be taken seriously that every continental soldier had a gun as a child. Perhaps trying to impress his Italian agrarian friend. In 1803 dearborn, under jefferson, conducted a firearm census which showed only 45% of militia members had access to a firearm (see below, includes state provided), which meant more than half white males did not.
... huffpo: The nation's first Sec of War, Henry Knox, ordered several nationwide counts of guns during George Washington's presidency. During Thomas Jefferson's admin, a more ambitious and careful national count was launched by War Secr Henry Dearborn in 1803, covering arms held both publicly and privately. The result showed that about 45% of militia-eligible men (roughly between the ages 18-45) had arms, or about 24% of adult white males. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-spitzer/upset-about-a-census-of-p_b_521389.html

sari/jeff: "A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."

Comports with the militia interpretation. It has to mean a militia, since armed unorganized individuals could not resist a numerical force against it. And recall the saying - an unorganized mob is no more an army than loose bricks & mortar a house.

[jimmy the one]

153. bogus quote alert, bogus quote alert

sari/jeff: "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

Who added in parentheses 'and of the United States'? because that addendum evidently does not appear in Thomas Jefferson's original writing to John Cartwright in 1824, 31 years after 2ndA was written. Did you add that sari? trying to be sneaky? or was it some other pro gun enthusiast taking things out of context or making things up?
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/thomas-jefferson-letter-to-john-cartwright-1824
http://www.marksquotes.com/Founding-Fathers/Jefferson/index9.htm

In context, jeff was contending 'most of our states' claim it is their right & duty to be at all times armed - and he could be referring to militia duty. By 1824 some states had morphed into an individual rkba, but most I think still retained the militia interpretation. Jeff evidently was not referring to the 2nd amendment in his letter to cartwright.

2) On Madison, sari cites: Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."

Did James Madison write 'Americans have the right and advantage of being armed—unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms' in the Federalist Papers #46?

No. Two phrases are his, but the words linking them are not.

In 1787 .. Madison argued that the existence of state militias should prevent that possibility ... One question involved the proposed federal army—might it not become an instrument of tyranny? Madison argued that the existence of state militias should prevent that possibility. In that context he wrote

Madison in context: It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
http://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/madison-and-the-advantage-of-being-armed/

fakehistory adds: The fake quotation as given is not an unreasonable summary of one of Madison’s points, and had it been phrased
Americans have the right and “advantage of being armed”—unlike the citizens of other countries whose “governments are afraid to trust the people with arms” it would probably be acceptable.

Note how Madison was referring to 'militia' when he prefaced his paragraph.
But it all adds up to gun enthusiasts trying to portray America's 2ndA as a singular individual rkba proven by Madison as he contrasted it with other countries, but Madison obviously didn't think the 2ndA was singular, just compared it to other nations whose govts disallowed firearms, which did exist but was not European overall policy.

[sarisataka]

154. I do not have time

To properly reply; it is a far too beautiful autumn day to stay in. I will be back later

It is possible that the words are not exactly correct as I did not cross check them. I have no need to be "sneaky" or massage data (like counting a terrorist killed by police and his own brother a gun violence victim).

I do not fear that which challenges my beliefs as I am not locked into my viewpoint being 100% correct. If verifiable data is presented that shows a different way is better I am willing to support change.

Can you honestly say the same?

[Glenn Vardy]

156. Phrase isn't his

No. Two phrases are his, but the words linking them are not.

It's worse than that.
The first phrase of the fake quote is: "Americans have the right and advantage..."
The actual quote from Madison is: "Besides the advantage..."

The word "right" has been added to fool people into believing he was commenting on the Second Amendment.

[sarisataka]

181. You are correct

Last edited Sun Oct 26, 2014, 04:29 PM - Edit history (1)

in the the parenthesized words are an addition. It seems a small quibble as it does not change the overall meaning.
If you note what I listed in post 177, several states had individual RKBA contemporary with or preceding the Constitution. Several more had added it before 1824.

Madison's context began with standing armies.

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for the common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia...

Now there is no specific reference to individual firearms ownership but t is difficult to conceive the newly born United States being able to maintain a stock of a half million arms to arm the militia.

In checking the quotes I found one by John Adams that seems appropriate

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 3:475 (1787-1788).

He is summarizing the current standing of the Second Amendment- an individual right to own arms, for reasons to include self-defense, but reasonably limited for the common good.

P.S. Congratulations on reviving the Activism group. In one day you more than doubled the 30 day post total. (no snark)

P.P.S. Good luck handling that invasion of gunnuts. It must be rough having one poster dare to question THE TRUTH. (Yeah, this one is snark)

[Glenn Vardy]

185. A well regulated militia, not unorganized gun owners.

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for the common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

He isn't referring to a bunch of gun owners who've chosen a commander "from amongst themselves" on a show of hands. He's talking about State appointed officers of a well regulated militia "conducted by governments."

[friendly_iconoclast]

186. Colonial militias did indeed elect their own officers back then

&quot C)hosen from among themselves" does NOT mean "State appointed"

It's clear you only see what you wish to see in American history

[Glenn Vardy]

188. Art 1, Sec 8.

Colonial militias did indeed elect their own officers back then. &quot C)hosen from among themselves" does NOT mean "State appointed"

We're talking about what Madison meant. He was defending the new constitution and was referring to militia mentioned in Article 1, Section 8. in that quote. In Article 1, Section 8, the state governments have the right/power to appoint the officers.

[friendly_iconoclast]

191. Your entire line of argument is moot, thanks to the unorganized militia...

...which you are obviously unfamiliar with:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap13-sec311.htm

10 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
Sec. 311 - Militia: composition and classes
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

§311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[Glenn Vardy]

206. Doesn't consist of everyone

Your entire line of argument is moot, thanks to the unorganized militia...

My argument is that Madison was referring to a well regulated militia in the quote.

§311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

According to this, the unorganized militia does NOT consist of all individuals. It consists of members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard, but it doesn't include anyone not fitting into part 'a'.

[friendly_iconoclast]

208. The ageist and sexist language wouldn't stand up to legal challenge

And in any event, it conflicts with Title 32, Section 313:


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title32/html/USCODE-2011-title32-chap3-sec313.htm

§313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—

(1) be a citizen of the United States; and

(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

Which means by your stated standards, every adult citizen under 64 is a member of the militia, and so has the right to keep and bear arms suitable for militia use (think AR platform rifle and large-caliber semiautomatic handguns)

[Glenn Vardy]

214. 65 year olds?

§313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—

(1) be a citizen of the United States; and

(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

Which means by your stated standards, every adult citizen under 64 is a member of the militia, and so has the right to keep and bear arms suitable for militia use (think AR platform rifle and large-caliber semiautomatic handguns)

So a 65 year old citizen is denied the right? The purpose of the Second Amendment was NOT to secure a personal right to citizens eligible to serve in the militia. It's to assure the continuation of these forces. As you can see, who was eligible to serve was down to law.

[friendly_iconoclast]

216. Your claim conflicts directly with the wording of the Second Amendment itself

The purpose of the Second Amendment was NOT to secure a personal right to citizens eligible to serve in the militia.

Remember this bit?

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

It does not go on to add "so long as said people are members of the militia" (or words to
that effect)

[Glenn Vardy]

224. Side-stepping in circles

Your claim conflicts directly with the wording of the Second Amendment itself.

My claim is that Madison was talking about a well regulated militia with state appointed officers and conducted by governments in that quote. He wasn't talking about all individual citizens with guns.

Rather than accept that fact, you side-stepped to militia law. Now that I've pointed out that the militia has NEVER consisted of all individuals, you side step to the wording of the Second Amendment which isn't a militia law and doesn't define who the militia is composed of.

Your argument is that, because the Second Amendment isn't militia law and doesn't define who a well regulated militia is composed of, it must be composed of everyone. But the stuff that YOU posted proves you wrong.

[jimmy the one]

232. knife sharpener needed

glenn to icon: .. the unorganized militia does NOT consist of all individuals. It consists of members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard, but it doesn't include anyone not fitting into part 'a'...

Some posters on here, glenn, aren't the sharpest knives in the cutlery set.
You replied to a red herring from icon, which has little to do with the 2ndA collective/indiv argument & especially not what Madison meant, since the unorganized militia code (aka dick act) was written in 1903 iirc, after the original militia system (1792) was declared worthless & obsolete by teddy Roosevelt. The unorganized militia code replaced the militia act of 1792.

icon to glenn: Your entire line of argument is moot, thanks to the unorganized militia......which you are obviously unfamiliar with

Your line of argument is smoot, since the militia code of 1903, the unorganized militia, fails the 2nd admendment litmus test, in that, by definition, an unorganized militia is not well regulated. Thus the militia code you posted, the militia act of 1903, cannot possibly be what Madison intended when he wrote the 2nd amendment.
So you could say that approx. 98% of americans could not belong to the militia which james Madison envisioned when he wrote the 2ndA.
Anybody got a knife sharpener?

[friendly_iconoclast]

238. The 'collective' reading of the Second Amendment is what's moot...

...carping from an ex-Supreme notwithstanding.

[gejohnston]

192. having the power and doing it

are two different things. The states have the power to lower the voting age to 12 if they wanted, but they don't.
Also, the Militia Act required you to use your personal weapon, as in purchased at the store by you and with your own money (in fact some US police departments do this, including some large cities like Houston).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

[Glenn Vardy]

198. Required

Also, the Militia Act required you to use your personal weapon, as in purchased at the store by you and with your own money

When you say "you," do you mean every individual or just those eligible for militia service? And if those eligible to serve were required BY LAW to provide the specified arm, an enumerated "right" to own a musket wasn't necessary in order have a well regulated militia.

[gejohnston]

200. the required those eligible

The only specification was that the ammo matched weapon. THAT DOES NOT MEAN others did not have the right to own a gun, nor did it mean you could not own any gun you wanted.

"right" to own a musket wasn't necessary in order have a well regulated militia.

Doesn't matter. The right still exists. The political philosophy was that god gave you the right to own a gun, smoke pot, write a book, preach from a soapbox or whatever.
At this point it sounds like you are trying to convince yourself instead of trying to convince anyone else. While you are reading Locke, perhaps you might check out critical thinking lessons.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

199. None of my business but...

...you're debating with someone unwilling to define "right".

[gejohnston]

201. sometimes I think I can

teach the blind to see.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

207. yeah

have a nice night

[Glenn Vardy]

236. Collective rights

you're debating with someone unwilling to define "right"

Why don't YOU define the word? But bear in mind, just because "collective" rights aren't defined in your dictionary doesn't mean they don't exist.

Below are the collective rights in the Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780.

Art. III. .....Therefore, To promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, THE PEOPLE of this commonwealth have a RIGHT to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

And THE PEOPLE of this commonwealth have also a RIGHT to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subject an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.

Art. IV. THE PEOPLE of this commonwealth have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHT of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State, and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.

Art. VII. Government is instituted for the common good, for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people, and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore THE PEOPLE alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible RIGHT to institute government, and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prospertiy, and happiness require it.

Art. VIII. In order to prevent those who are vested with authority from becoming oppressors, THE PEOPLE have a RIGHT at such periods and in such manner as they shall establish by their frame of government, to cause their public officers to return to private life; and to fill up vacant places by certain and regular elections and appointments.

Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.

Art. XVIII. A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to those of piety, justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve the advantages of liberty and to maintain a free government. THE PEOPLE ought, consequently, to have a particular attention to all those principles, in the choice of their officers and representatives; and they have a RIGHT to require of their lawgivers and magistrates an exact and constant observation of them, in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of the commonwealth.

Art. XIX. THE PEOPLE have a RIGHT, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble to consult upon the COMMON good; give instructions to their representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by the way of addresses, petitions, or remonstrances, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer.

(The provision below secures an individual right. But it refers to "rights of the people, AND of every citizen" showing there's a difference)

Art. XXIX. It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice. It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial, and independent as the lot of humanity will admit. It is, therefore, not only the best policy, but for the security of the rights of the people, and of every citizen, tht the judges of the supreme judicial court should hold their offices as long as they behave themselves well, and that they should have honorable salaries ascertained and established by standing laws.
------------------------------

Below are the individual rights in the Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780. Note that they're not secured to "the people."

Art. IX. All elections ought to be free; and ALL THE INHABITANTS of this commonwealth, having such qualifications as they shall establish by their frame of government, have an EQUAL RIGHT to elect officers, and to be elected, for public employments.

Art. X. EVERY INDIVIDUAL of the society has a RIGHT to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to expense of this protection; to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary; but no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent. And whenever the public exigencies require that the property of any individual should be appropriated to public uses, he shall receive a reasonable compensation therefor.

Art. XI. EVERY SUBJECT of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain RIGHT and justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay, conformably to the laws.

Art. XII. NO SUBJECT shall be held to answer for any crimes or no offence until the same if fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him; or be compelled to accuse, or furnish evidence against himself; and EVERY SUBJECT shall have a RIGHT to produce all proofs that may be favorable to him; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself, or his counsel at his election. And no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.

And the legislature shall not make any law that shall subject any person to a capital or infamous punishment, excepting for the government of the army and navy, without trial by jury.

Art. XIV. EVERY SUBJECT has a RIGHT to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation, and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure; and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities, prescribed by the laws.

Art. XV. In all controversies concerning property, and in all suits between two or more PERSONS, except in cases in which it has heretofore been otherways used and practised, the parties have a RIGHT to a trial by jury; and this method of procedure shall be held sacred, unless, in causes arising on the high seas, and such as relate to mariners' wages, the legislature shall hereafter find it neessary to alter it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

240. With all due respect...

...thanks and I will read all that at some point but I did respect your right to not answer when I asked for a definition. Please respect my decision to be done. I'm not being pedantic or argumentative. I have a busy week on the road and not much time to read or write in any deep detail here.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

258. Rights

As in "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In this context, a right is an innate attribute of a person. A right serves as a guide for behavior in that it names good, correct and righteous pursuits. Actions, having as a goal sustaining one's life are congruent with this guide. Enacting legislation providing for such behavior as legal is also congruent with this guide.

Suggesting that a only a group of people rather than an individual have the right to life is just plain bizarre.

[Glenn Vardy]

187. The thrust

"It must be made a sacred maxim, that the militia obey the executive power, which represents the whole people in the execution of laws. To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man — is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed, and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."

When a brainwashed person reads this, all he/she sees is "self defense."

But what is the thrust of his argument? "To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens, to be used at individual discretion,... is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man — is a dissolution of the government."

[sarisataka]

189. Nice

You repeatedly ask where are individuals mentioned, neatly ignoring people can refer to individuals, but where it is clearly stated "private self defense " you just edit that part out.

It is clear no amount of evidence will change your view of a "collective right".

An election is a collective action of the individual right of voting.
A citizen's militia is a collective of individuals who have the right of self defense to include arms.

In all of your posts and cites, there is not one reference the the right of arms ownership is reserved solely to the militia. Even the warped interpretation that the Amendment only pertains to the militia, it does not automatically follow that there is no individual right of ownership of arms or one must be a member of the militia to keep and bear arms.

Good day

[Glenn Vardy]

195. I showed the wider quote

...but where it is clearly stated "private self defense " you just edit that part out."

I showed the quote whole, then took a section of the quote to show the thrust of Adams' argument. I put it into context. But all you see are the words "private self defense" and you read into those words something he wasn't saying. The quote is from before the Second Amendment, so he isn't referring to the purpose of that. And Adams penned the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights which secured the right of the people to keep and bear arms for "the common defense." Was it against the law for a militiaman to use his gun for "self defense?" probably not. But securing a right to own a gun for self defense wasn't the purpose of the provision. In the quote, Adams wasn't saying that the purpose of ANYTHING was "private self defense."

[Straw Man]

210. Brainwashed?

"It must be made a sacred maxim, that the militia obey the executive power, which represents the whole people in the execution of laws. To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man — is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed, and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."

When a brainwashed person reads this, all he/she sees is "self defense."

But what is the thrust of his argument? "To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens, to be used at individual discretion,... is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man — is a dissolution of the government."

Congrats on qualifying for the Hypocrite of the Year award. You omit the exception that supports the individual-right interpretation, ...

except in private self defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state

... and then claim that what is left is the "thrust of his argument."

Who defines "brainwashed"? You? The irony is rich.

Bad faith, my friend, very bad faith.

[Glenn Vardy]

218. "supports the individual-right interpretation?"

You omit the exception that supports the individual-right interpretation, ...

It does not. Without context, it's nothing more than a Founder saying the words "self defense" BEFORE there was the Second Amendment.

... and then claim that what is left is the "thrust of his argument."

The thrust of his argument was NOT that "It must be made a sacred maxim, that.. arms in the hands of the citizens" should be "used at individual discretion" for "private self defense," was it?

The NRA's so-called "historians" butcher this quote in a similar way then claim it supports an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, which didn't exist. Anything after the word "except" is NOT part of his main argument.

[Straw Man]

223. Now you're making me laugh.

The NRA's so-called "historians" butcher this quote in a similar way then claim it supports an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, which didn't exist. Anything after the word "except" is NOT part of his main argument.

Please -- you're deleting a significant part of the quote and then accusing others of "butchering"? Can you even see how hypocritical that is?

Anything after the word "except" is very relevant, in that he recognizes situations in which his argument does NOT apply. Your omission significantly changes the original quote. If you can't see that, then you're either dishonest or incredibly obtuse.

[Glenn Vardy]

228. Drawing false conclusions

Anything after the word "except" is very relevant, in that he recognizes situations in which his argument does NOT apply.

That's true. But what conclusion do YOU draw from that? Does this prove that he believed the PURPOSE of ANY militia/arms bear provision was to secure a right to own guns for self-defense? No. Like I said in another post, Adams had a hand in the framing the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights which secured the right of the people to keep and bear arms for "the common defense." Was it against the law for a militiaman to use his gun for "self defense?" probably not. But securing a right to own a gun for self defense wasn't the purpose of the provision.

[Straw Man]

229. Wrong again.

Anything after the word "except" is very relevant, in that he recognizes situations in which his argument does NOT apply.

That's true. But what conclusion do YOU draw from that? Does this prove that he believed the PURPOSE of ANY militia/arms bear provision was to secure a right to own guns for self-defense?

It proves that he believed that the right to own guns for self-defense should not be infringed, regardless of the ultimate purpose of the provision. That's the part you would like to omit.

Bad faith again.

[Glenn Vardy]

233. Propagandist accusing others of bad faith.

It proves that he believed that the right to own guns for self-defense should not be infringed

Why didn't he put that in the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights which secured the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms for "the common defense?"

Why did you choose to ignore this part of my post in your reply?

[Straw Man]

245. I'm a propagandist?

And you're not? Puh-leeze.

Why did you choose to ignore this part of my post in your reply?

I didn't ignore anything. You're the one doing the creative deletion. I merely reminded you of the importance of what you deleted. Apparently it offends you to have your misrepresentations pointed out. Too bad.

[Glenn Vardy]

247. Not answering isn't ignoring?

I didn't ignore anything.

You said: "It proves that he believed that the right to own guns for self-defense should not be infringed"

I asked: "Why didn't he put that in the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights which secured the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms for "the common defense?""

What answer have you given?
-----------

A word to Straw Man's employers.
Don't sack him. It's not his fault that you can't provide him with the facts.

[Straw Man]

249. You're asking me why Adams did or didn't say something?

I didn't ignore anything.

You said: "It proves that he believed that the right to own guns for self-defense should not be infringed"

I asked: "Why didn't he put that in the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights which secured the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms for "the common defense?""

What answer have you given?

The exceptions he provided, as quoted above, include the exception for individual self-defense. I can't help it if you persist in ignoring them. As for your question on what he said in any given document, you're asking me to divine the intentions of a man who is long dead. Apparently you think yourself capable of doing this, but I think you're delusional.

A word to Straw Man's employers.
Don't sack him. It's not his fault that you can't provide him with the facts.

I speak for myself and no one else. I haven't questioned your motives. Why do you feel that is is appropriate to question mine?

[Glenn Vardy]

157. Your OWN assertion

It protects.. the individual right

But that's just your own assertion for which you find no evidence to support from the debate.

[Glenn Vardy]

158. Bearing arms IS military service

it was feared a future government would try to use the religious exemption clause to decide who is "religiously scrupulous" therefore deny their right to bear arms or serve in the militia

"Religiously scrupulous" of WHAT? By "bearing arms," they meant "military service," not "carrying guns" for shooting game or any other private purpose.

[Glenn Vardy]

159. The military expression and phrase

it (objector clause) would allow the Federal government to destroy the State militias; thus giving the Federal government all military power.

That's correct. But you can't grasp that their concern about the objector clause was that the Federal Government might prevent people from "bearing arms," which MEANS "render military service" in the State militias.

Madison's original draft differed slightly from the one presented to Congress.
1. "compelled to bear arms."
2. "compelled to render military service..."

From as early as the 1300's, the Oxford English Dictionary defined "BEAR ARMS" as "serve as a soldier, do military service, fight.." This is CLEARLY how the MILITARY expression and phrase "bear Arms" is being used in this amendment.

[sarisataka]

177. Final answer

Firstly- in the debate Quakers were mentioned as an example of those who would not bear arms in military service. Yet it was acknowledged they do use guns for hunting. There was no discussion of them not being able to have arms unless they were willing to render military service.- The the eyes of the debaters there was no connection with the right to own and carry arms with militia service, it was inherent in the individual.

Secondly- Madison's change

1. "compelled to bear arms."
2. "compelled to render military service..."

makes a very important distinction. There are many military jobs that do not require bearing arms e.g. medical work. In the original draft a person could be compelled to military service without actually being required to bear arms; his revision removes the ability to draft a person into non-combat service.

Thirdly- some contemporary state constitutions you omitted referencing

1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

1790 Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

1792 Kentucky: That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Fourth- the five states that recommended an right to keep and bear arms be amended to the Constitution:

New Hampshire, 21 June 1788
Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in
Actual Rebellion.
Virginia, 27 June 1788
Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well
regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural
and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to
liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the
Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination
to and governed by the Civil power. . . .
That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon
payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.
New York, 26 July 1788
That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia,
including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe
defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time
of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to
Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the
Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.
North Carolina, 2 August 1788
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia
composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence
of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore
ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit;
and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by
the civil power.
Rhode Island, 29 May 1790
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms that a well regulated militia,
including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural and safe
defence of a free state; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law except in time of
war, rebellion or insurrection; that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty,
and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity, and that at all times the military
should be under strict subordination to the civil power. . . .
That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, ought to be exempted, upon
payment of an equivalent, to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

Note the use of the term 'people'- "the people have a right"; "composed of the body of the people". The term people s being used as a collective term to refer to individuals, very common at that time. (See the Fourth Amendment "The right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses,...&quot

and finally- SCOTUS has ruled there is an individual right of ownership of arms. In accordance with Article lll of the Constitution, this is final and binding until such time as the Constitution is further amended, negating such ruling or SCOTUS ruling of a different case finds cause to reverse their previous ruling.
Additionally, the Democratic Party platform and the sitting President (a Democrat) have expressly stated their support for an individual right of firearms ownership.

Unless you have a different point, I will not debate the matter further. It is a settled questing, even f many do not like the interpretation.
In any case it is irrelevant as it is also agreed gun control laws are permitted within the Second Amendment, short of a total ban. And nobody actually is saying ban all guns, right?

[Glenn Vardy]

182. Bearing arms IS military service

Firstly- in the debate Quakers were mentioned as an example of those who would not bear arms in military service.

There aren't two different meanings for "bear[ing] arms" in this proposal. Quakers were an example of those who would not bear arms MEANING they wouldn't "render military service" because they might be expected to kill other human beings.

From as early as the 1300's, the Oxford English Dictionary defined "BEAR ARMS" as "serve as a soldier, do military service, fight.." This is CLEARLY how the MILITARY expression and phrase "bear Arms" is being used in this amendment.

1. "compelled to bear arms."
2. "compelled to render military service..."

makes a very important distinction. There are many military jobs that do not require bearing arms...

Anyone rendering military service is said to be "bearing arms." They both mean the same thing.

I'll deal with the other stuff in separate post.

[Glenn Vardy]

183. The other state provisions

Thirdly- some contemporary state constitutions you omitted referencing

1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Firstly, notice than none of them contain the word "keep," which is the word you guys distort into meaning "personally own."
Secondly, the right is secured to "the people" in there collective capacity, not to each "person" or "citizen."
Thirdly, they both have a military context. They're both MILITIA provisions.
Fourthly, they don't address self-defense with the word "themselves." The defense of "themselves" is the same as "the common defense." If the State government became tyrannical, they could defend "themselves" without being confined to defending the state government.

Look at this from the same declaration of rights of Pennsylvania:
"That EVERY MEMBER of society hath a right TO BE PROTECTED in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expence of that protection, and yield his PERSONAL SERVICE when necessary, or an equivalent thereto:... Nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of BEARING ARMS, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent,..."

There was also an identical provision in Vermont.

The arms bearing proposal is a COLLECTIVE right of "the people." The right to be protected BY THE MILITIA belongs to "every member of society." If they wanted to secure the right to bear arms to every member of society, they could have. Also, notice that "service" in the militia is the same as "bearing arms."

[jimmy the one]

227. vintage 2ndA mythology

Last edited Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:47 PM - Edit history (1)

1 sari/jeff: "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

2 sari: You are correct in the the parenthesized words are an addition. It seems a small quibble as it does not change the overall meaning.

It certainly does change the overall meaning; by including 'and *of the constitution* of the United States', it changes it to infer & mislead that Jefferson was including the 2nd amendment, & thus mislead that jeff was referring to all the states & the fed rather than just 'most states'.
Without the parenthesized 'and of the United States', there is no subliminal link to the 2ndA.
Whoever included the parens was trying to mislead that jeff was referring to the 2ndA and that it conveyed a 'right & duty to be at all times armed'. It's vintage 2nd amendment mythology.

sari: Sounds like Mr. Jefferson believed in people able to own arms as individuals

A leap too far. (addendum on edit) - in that he didn't think they had an individual rkba outside of militia service. The right was incumbent on militia service. Of course he'd think they could own arms as individuals, just not that the 2ndA gave that individual right disconnected from milita.
What jeff said - power inherent in the people - comports with the militia view, as a powerful militia; with an individual rkba the populace was inept & more a threat internally- Washington wanted a select militia not everyone.

Or - that they may exercise it by themselves - he's advising all the fat white people should carry a 7 lb musket for exercise????

sari: .. several states had individual RKBA contemporary with or preceding the Constitution. Several more had added it before 1824.

What you refer to was a supplementary individual right which went alongside the militia collective right.
All states included a collective militia rkba, the individual rkba was alongside it. If 2ndA had meant what scalia contends, why would they even have needed a militia rkba?

[Glenn Vardy]

184. The state proposals

Note the use of the term 'people'- "the people have a right"; "composed of the body of the people". The term people s being used as a collective term to refer to individuals,

No it isn't. Only ONE of the state proposals you posted would have protected a right of every citizen to own a gun.

Does the following mean that the militia shall be composed of all individuals capable of carrying a gun: "that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms?" No, "the people" doesn't mean all individuals and "capable of bearing Arms" means "eligible to render military service."

The NRA and their gun industry sponsors have successfully brainwashed the public with nothing more than a constantly repeated lie.

[jimmy the one]

221. 1776/77 arms provisions

sari: Thirdly- some contemporary state constitutions you omitted referencing -- 1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing arm...
Note the use of the term 'people'- "the people have a right"; "composed of the body of the people". The term people s being used as a collective term to refer to individuals, very common at that time

Of course 'the people' consists of individuals, both the term & word, but that ruse doesn't make the 2ndA an individual rkba, never has. It was always considered interchangeable, or ambiguous.
The state arms provisions you cite all evolved from previous provisions mentioned (above by glenn) in 1776/77. Note how most use 'the people' to support the militia view:

(rightwing) Madison Brigade: Eight of the original states enacted their own bills of rights prior to the adoption of the {US} Constitution. The following states included an arms-rights provision in their state constitution...

Virginia (Jun12, 1776) That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
DEL (Sept11,1776) That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free govt.

PENNSY (Sep28, 1776) XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
MARYLAND (Nov 11, 1776) XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.

NOR CAROLINA (Dec18, 1776) XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under the strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
VERMONT (July 8, 1777) XV. That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State …

MASSA (Oct25, 1780) XVII. The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.
NEW HAMPSHIRE (June 2, 1784) XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor_2nd_amendment.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.. look at New York & Rhode Island proclamations (same link) about Constitution ratification: NEW YORK CONVENTION (July 26,1788) That the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.
RHODE ISLAND RATIFICATION CONVENTION (May 29, 1790) XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

The preface was 'That the people have the right to keep & bear arms'. Is that the 'declaratory clause' according to Scalia? so that the well reg'd militia clause following is the 'operative' clause? pls explain judicial pig scalia.

NEW YORK CONVENTION (July 7,1788) {prior to above} That the militia should always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include, according to past usages of the states, all the men capable of bearing arms, and that no regulations tending to render the general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, of distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community, ought to be made.

[jimmy the one]

225. exercise with your 7 lb gun

sari/ Jefferson: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

I've posted in fuller context below Jefferson's letter to his nephew. You didn't really mislead on excerpt above since it included 'the species of exercise'. Meanwhile, here are 2 more excerpts from jeff 1825 & 1822, regarding pistols. Note first he does not endorse carrying guns for protection against criminal activity, just common defense & predatory animals: 1822 July 20 "...I ask the acceptance, by your son, of a keep-sake from me. It is an article of the tackle of a gun-man, offering the convenience of carrying the powder & shot together. I presume he is a gun-man, as I am sure he ought to be, and every American who wishes to protect his farm from the ravages of quadrupeds & his country from those of biped invaders

This one befuddles me, help. It seems he is saying, circa 1825, the pistol was used for murder. Even so, carrying a pistol for immediate use, as today, was impractical: 1825 Sep Dancing is generally, and justly I think, considered among innocent accomplishments; while we cannot so consider the art of stabbing and pistolling our friends, or dexterity in the practice of an instrument exclusively used for killing our fellow-citizens only and never against the public enemy. http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/firearms

Note here that nowhere in his lengthy advice, does jeff advise carrying a gun for protection: In 1785 Thomas Jefferson wrote to his fifteen-year-old nephew, Peter Carr, regarding what he considered the best form of exercise: I advise you to begin a course of ancient history.. read Goldsmith's history of Greece....In morality.. Antoninus, Seneca.
In order to assure a certain progress in this reading, consider what hours you have free from the school and the exercises of the school. Give about two of them, every day, to exercise; for health must not be sacrificed to learning. A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. Never think of taking a book with you. The object of walking is to relax the mind. You should therefore not permit yourself even to think while you walk; but divert your attention by the objects surrounding you. Walking is the best possible exercise. Habituate yourself to walk very far.
The Europeans value themselves on having subdued the horse to the uses of man; but I doubt whether we have not lost more than we have gained, by the use of this animal. No one has occasioned so much, the degeneracy of the human body. An Indian goes on foot nearly as far in a day, for a long journey, as an enfeebled white does on his horse; and he will tire the best horses. There is no habit you will value so much as that of walking far without fatigue. I would advise you to take your exercise in the afternoon: not because it is the best time for exercise, for certainly it is not; but because it is the best time to spare from your studies; and habit will soon reconcile it to health, and render it nearly as useful as if you gave to that the more precious hours of the day. A little walk of half an hour, in the morning, when you first rise, is advisable also. It shakes off sleep, and produces other good effects in the animal economy. Rise at a fixed and an early hour, and go to bed at a fixed and early hour also. Sitting up late at night is injurious to the health, and not useful to the mind. Having ascribed proper hours to exercise, divide what remain, (I mean of your vacant hours) into three portions. Write to me once every month or two, and let me know the progress you make. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/let31.asp

[friendly_iconoclast]

239. Posting with a 1/2 oz. quill pen?

[jimmy the one]

231. new constitution every 19 yrs, jefferson

sari: Consider again this from Mr. Jefferson "On every occasion let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

What jeff wrote, again, comports with the historical interpretation of the 2nd amendment as a militia rkba. The current individual rkba is Scalia's revisionist history, not stare' decisis.
Jefferson also believed this, sari, so don't you think he'd believe that the 2nd amendment today is outdated obsolete & more a danger to americans? than in 1776 when they had single shot muskets?

Jefferson, 1789, prior to bill of rights: Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html

Gee, I guess jeff thought the AWB shoulda lasted 19 years!

[beevul]

211. So typical. Get everyone asking the wrong question, and of course...

So typical. Get everyone asking the wrong question, and of course they're bound to come up with the wrong answer.

Exhibit A:

"Who did these rights belong to?"

Yup. That's the wrong question.

Incidentally, ALL rights belong to the people, inherently, in our system of government, and ONLY people can have rights (governments have "powers" which is not the same thing).

Asking "who" rights belong to, is...well...just dumb.



The bill of rights protects rights belonging to people, through a mechanism of rules which government must follow. "Congress shall make no law..." and so on. The preamble to the bill of rights explicitly states as much, saying that "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (governments) powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added...".

In amendment 2, it says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state ( yes, in modern language that's exactly what it says). The key point there, is that a right belonging to the people shall not be infringed by government.

Where in any of that, do you read that "shall not be infringed" refers to what government shall not do, strictly in the collective capacity vs individual?

I don't see any qualifiers there...That's the real question at hand here, since that's exactly what the law of the land says, as passed, without such imaginative qualifiers.

[Glenn Vardy]

219. Your answer?

That's the wrong question.... Asking "who" rights belong to, is...well...just dumb.

No, your assertion is dumb. What's your answer?

[beevul]

251. My assertion is empirical fact.

"No, your assertion is dumb."


My assertion is empirical fact, and you don't have to like it or agree with it, any more than you have to like or agree with other empirical facts such as the sun rising in the morning, or water being wet. And when you disagree with clear and obvious factual truth, the rest of us are free to point it out.

"What's your answer?"

My answer to what exactly?

[Glenn Vardy]

254. The purpose

That's the wrong question.... Asking "who" rights belong to, is...well...just dumb.

No, your assertion is dumb. What's your answer?

My answer to what exactly?

Were you blind drunk when you posted those replies? Those provisions are in state Declaration of Rights. WHO or WHICH BODY do those rights belong to? My own answer is: they belong to the people in their collective capacity, not to each individual in person. The words "the people" aren't used, but the right do belong to those bodies. The words "bear Arms" aren't used either, but they are arms bearing proposals. "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" would secure the exact same thing. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to assure the continuation of the militia forces in those provisions. The debates in the conventions prove this to be true. The concern was that those forces were mentioned in the new constitution and Congress had the power to destroy those forces through neglect. If congress failed to maintain those forces, the States couldn't do it because the power was given to the Congress in the constitution.

Martin:
“By the next paragraph, Congress is to have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States... For this extraordinary provision, by which the militia, the only defence and protection which the STATE can have for the security of THEIR RIGHTS against arbitrary encroachments of the general government, is taken entirely out of the power of their respective States, and placed under the power of Congress... the proposed system, taking away from the STATES the RIGHT of organizing, arming and disciplining of the militia, the first attempt made by a State to put the militia in a situation to counteract the arbitrary measures of the general government, would be construed into an act of rebellion, or treason; and Congress would instantly march their troops into the State.

George Mason:
“The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless-- by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive RIGHT to arm them.”

NO-ONE raised the concern that the proposed constitution didn't secure a right to own guns for self defense or any other private purpose.

[beevul]

256. Youy're playing the "distinction without a difference" game.

"My own answer is: they belong to the people in their collective capacity, not to each individual in person."

Right...which is why voting only happens when everyone is ready to vote, rather than voting being done individual by individual...Oh, wait...

"NO-ONE raised the concern that the proposed constitution didn't secure a right to own guns for self defense or any other private purpose."

Yes, and they never raised the concern that abortion be added either...so are you saying abortion should only be allowed at the collective level too?

Also, I notice you spend a great deal of time focusing on "what was proposed" rather than "what was actually passed into law", and I can only wonder, as I'm sure everyone else wonders, why exactly that is.

The reality is, your side lost. The law of the land says what it says, now baked by ussc decision.

Get over it, or don't, but its here to stay.

[Glenn Vardy]

259. Voting and abortion?

voting being done individual by individual

So, because an individual votes, "A well regulated militia is the natural/proper defense of a free state/country/government" must be securing an individual right?

Yes, and they never raised the concern that abortion be added either...

Why don't you want to discuss the concerns that WERE raised? And you'd rather be discussing voting and abortion, and I can only wonder, as I'm sure everyone else wonders, why exactly that is.

I notice you spend a great deal of time focusing on "what was proposed" rather than "what was actually passed into law"

The final draft secures the exact same thing as the original draft but without the objector clause. If it doesn't, tell us at which point in the drafting process the purpose of the proposal changed.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

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 person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. [35]

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.

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.

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

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.

[beevul]

261. Sorry, but no.

"So, because an individual votes, "A well regulated militia is the natural/proper defense of a free state/country/government" must be securing an individual right?"

No.

Because a restriction was placed on government, which restricts government with no specificity toward protecting rights at an individual or collective level, both levels are equally protected.

Why are you having such a hard time wrapping your brain around that simple factual truth?

[Glenn Vardy]

263. No and yes?

"A well regulated militia is the natural/proper defense of a free state/country/government"

No. Because a restriction was placed on government, which restricts government with no specificity toward protecting rights at an individual or collective level, both levels are equally protected. Why are you having such a hard time wrapping your brain around that simple factual truth?

So those provisions aren't securing individual rights ("No",) but they're securing rights on an "individual level????" Those rights belong to the people on a collective level, don't they?

[beevul]

265. Can't you read?

"So those provisions aren't securing individual rights ("No",) but they're securing rights on an "individual level????" Those rights belong to the people on a collective level, don't they?"

Government is restricted from infringing on X, and X can be exercised individually and collectively.

The exercise of x at the individual "level", is equally as protected from government infringement as the exercise of x at the collective level.

Like I said, take some CONLAW 101, some CONTHEORY101, and get back to me.

[Glenn Vardy]

266. Can't you give straight answers?

I said: "The Second Amendment is a militia amendment. Most state Declaration of Rights contained something along the line of:
"That a well-regulated militia is the proper/natural defence of a free state/country/government; that standing armies are dangerous etc" Who did these rights belong to? They belonged to "the people" in their collective capacity."

beevul said: "Asking "who" rights belong to, is...well...just dumb."

I said: "What's your answer?"

beevul said: "My answer to what exactly?"

I said: "WHO or WHICH BODY do those rights belong to? My own answer is: they belong to the people in their collective capacity, not to each individual in person."

beevul said: "Right...which is why voting only happens when everyone is ready to vote, rather than voting being done individual by individual...Oh, wait..."

I said: "So, because an individual votes, "A well regulated militia is the natural/proper defense of a free state/country/government" must be securing an individual right?"

beevul said: "No. Because a restriction was placed on government, which restricts government with no specificity toward protecting rights at an individual or collective level, both levels are equally protected."

I said: "So those provisions aren't securing individual rights ("No",) but they're securing rights on an "individual level????" Those rights belong to the people on a collective level, don't they?"

beevul said: "Government is restricted from infringing on X, and X can be exercised individually and collectively. The exercise of x at the individual "level", is equally as protected from government infringement as the exercise of x at the collective level."
-------------------------------

You've acknowledged that the right may be "exercised at a collective level." Perhaps you could explain how the right was to be exercised on an individual level? And you haven't explained the contradiction in your statement. They don't protect individual rights, but they protect rights that may be exercised on an "individual level?"

The only argument still afloat is that they protect the right of the people in their collective capacity. It was a matter of a "well regulated militia" as opposed to a standing army.

[beevul]

267. Every answer I've given you has been a strait answer...

Last edited Fri Oct 31, 2014, 01:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Every answer I've given you has been a strait answer, you either haven't read and interpreted what I said in any reasonable way, or you're pretending I've said things that I haven't actually said.

"You've acknowledged that the right may be "exercised at a collective level." Perhaps you could explain how the right was to be exercised on an individual level?"

I never said some rights could NOT be exercised at the collective level. And as to the right being exercised at the individual level - that is the right to keep and bear arms - that's a no brainer. Legally own or carry a gun, and you're exercising it at the individual level.

"And you haven't explained the contradiction in your statement."

There is no contradiction in my statements, other than what you've invented out of thin air.

"The only argument still afloat is that they protect the right of the people in their collective capacity."

Because you say so...right...go try that with the supreme court and see where that gets you. You are no more an arbiter of truth or fact here than you would be arguing before it.

The rights protected by Amendment 2 from government interference, are protected through restrictions on government contained in the amendment.

Amendment 2 protects rights which can be exercised both collectively and individually.

Amendment 2 makes no distinction between forbidding government interference with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, whether it be interference on the individual level or the collective level.

Therefore both are equally protected.


Game.Set.Match.

[Glenn Vardy]

276. Fluke true comment?

"That a well-regulated militia is the proper/natural defence of a free state/country/government;

that is the right to keep and bear arms -

You just said something that's true. You'll be backtracking

Legally own or carry a gun, and you're exercising it at the individual level.

Where does that provision say anything about a right for individuals to own and carry guns?

Game.Set.Match.

You guys have a habit of declaring yourselves the winners when you're sunk.

[beevul]

278. Where?

Last edited Sat Nov 1, 2014, 05:53 PM - Edit history (2)

"Where does that provision say anything about a right for individuals to own and carry guns?"

Its simple constitutional theory.

All rights belong to the people Glenn. All of them. Every last one.

Rights aren't granted by the constitution or the bill of rights, Glenn, and they're not granted by government.

Specific rights are PROTECTED by the bill of rights, not CREATED by it.

In the case of amendment 2, government is forbidden from infringing on those rights, with no specificity or qualifiers denoting that it only applies in the collective sense. Therefore the restriction on government infringement applies to both the collective and the individual exercise of the right.

It is what it is Glenn, and no amount of misdirection, obfuscation, insults, denial or outright stupidity is going to make it go away or cause it to be something it isn't.

"You guys have a habit of declaring yourselves the winners when you're sunk."

Yeah. I'll take losses like Heller and McDonald any day. Savor your "victories".

[Glenn Vardy]

281. Straw and red-herrings answer

I asked: "Where does that provision say anything about a right for individuals to own and carry guns?"

Its simple constitutional theory.

All rights belong to the people Glenn. All of them. Every last one.

Rights aren't granted by the constitution or the bill of rights, Glenn, and they're not granted by government.

Specific rights are PROTECTED by the bill of rights, not CREATED by it.

1. You have a "theory" that an individual acting alone can exercise that right? Your "theory" is wrong because an individual acting alone cannot exercise that right. The people in their collective capacity can exercise that right.

2. Obviously, the rights belong to people and not brick walls. The question is whether those rights were intended to be exercised collectively or by individuals acting alone.

3. The rights we're talking about came from the people who framed those constitutions.

4. I haven't said that the U.S. Bill of Rights created rights, and my argument doesn't depend on the U.S. Bill of Rights creating rights.

You avoided the question with this diversionary waffle full of unproven assertions, straw and red-herrings.

In the case of amendment 2, government is forbidden from infringing on those rights, with no specificity or qualifiers denoting that it only applies in the collective sense.

For your interpretation to be true, there has to be qualifiers denoting that individuals may exercise the right by themselves.

The Bouvier Law Dictionary:

PEOPLE: A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in its COLLECTIVE and political capacity.

STATE: This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient BODY of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into ONE BODY POLITIC; and the state, and the people of the state, are EQUIVALENT EXPRESSIONS .

BODY POLITIC: " ..As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take COLLECTIVELY the name, of PEOPLE, or nation; and INDIVIDUALLY they are CITIZENS..."
-----------------------

Black’s Law Dictionary
PEOPLE: A state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacity. The aggregate or mass of the individuals who constitute the state. In a more restricted sense, and as generally used in constitutional law, the entire BODY of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes.

SOVEREIGN PEOPLE: The political body, consisting of the entire number of citizens and qualified electors, who, in their COLLECTIVE capacity, possess the powers of sovereignty and exercise them through their chosen representatives.
------------------------

Sketches of American Policy By Noah Webster.
"This association of all the individuals of a community is called the body politic or State... The members, spoken of COLLECTIVELY, are called PEOPLE, spoken of SEVERALLY, they may be called CITIZENS."
----------------------------

[beevul]

283. Sorry bud, but you're wrong again.

"For your interpretation to be true, there has to be qualifiers denoting that individuals may exercise the right by themselves."

For your above sentence to be true, the bill of rights would have to be a "the people are allowed to..." document, rather than a "government shall not" document.

The bill of rights, is a document which protects rights.

It does so, through a mechanism of forbidding certain actions by government, which is explicitly stated and spelled out in the preamble, and often referred to as a negative charter of rights.

Amendment 2, which is contained in the bill of rights, forbids a certain action by government.

The action which it forbids is infringement on a right which belongs to the people, namely the right to keep and bear arms.

Your entire argument depends on this:

Your "theory" is wrong because an individual acting alone cannot exercise that right. The people in their collective capacity can exercise that right."

That's simply your opinion, nothing more. It doesn't mesh well with reality. Easily shown to be at odds with reality, it is.

"2. Obviously, the rights belong to people and not brick walls. The question is whether those rights were intended to be exercised collectively or by individuals acting alone."

Nope. Whats in question, is what was passed into binding law, since THAT represents ultimately, ALL of the framers rather than whatever subset you might cherrypick and groom and mischaracterize to suit your ends.

3. The rights we're talking about came from the people who framed those constitutions.

Actually, they didn't. The protections of those rights came from the framers. The rights themselves, are a result of the theory behind our system of government. And the framers understood the final result of their efforts, the negative charter of rights.

You clearly don't understand how that works.

4. I haven't said that the U.S. Bill of Rights created rights, and my argument doesn't depend on the U.S. Bill of Rights creating rights.

But you proceed from exactly that standpoint.

You proceed from the standpoint that all things are forbidden except that which is allowed via due process, rather than reality. Now, I know you think your gonna spin your way out of it, but heres the proof:

"For your interpretation to be true, there has to be qualifiers denoting that individuals may exercise the right by themselves."

In a society with a negative charter of rights, it is government which would need the qualifier denoting under which circumstances they are allowed to disregard any particular rule, such as amendment 2, that they must otherwise follow. Not only is that proof that you have the onus backwards, its also proof that you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the underlying constitutional theory of our government.

Not that you need another torpedo to the side, but riddle me this Glenn:

Where in amendment 4 are the qualifiers denoting that individuals may exercise the right by themselves?

[Glenn Vardy]

286. Torpedo?

Not that you need another torpedo to the side, but riddle me this Glenn: Where in amendment 4 are the qualifiers denoting that individuals may exercise the right by themselves?

It refers to "their persons," "their houses," "their papers" and "their effects." It also refers to the "persons" to be seized.

Do you accept that "the people" is always used to refer to a certain collective body, or is the evidence I posted all wrong?

If a State constitution secures a right of "the people" to be free from searches, could a citizen of a different state claim protection? No, because he doesn't belong to the collective body referred to in that constitution. It doesn't mean just "people."

Suppose the same state has these two provisions in it's constitution:
1. The people have the right to regulate the police.
2. The people have the right to be secure in their papers and effects.

Both refer to the collective body which holds the right, so they're BOTH collective rights. But they're NOT both applied in the same way. A citizen acting alone CANNOT regulate the police even though, as a citizen belonging to that body, he's free from unreasonable searches. This is what you guys fail to understand when looking at the U.S. Bill of Rights. The amendment dealing with the security of a free State isn't applied in the same way as the one dealing with unreasonable searches. If eligible to serve, citizens would be called to serve in a well regulated militia on BEHALF of "the people," the body which holds the right.

You have to ignore a lot of evidence to keep your "gun rights" "theory" afloat.

[beevul]

292. Yeah, torpedo.

"It refers to "their persons," "their houses," "their papers" and "their effects."

So what?

You said, and I quote:

"For your interpretation to be true, there has to be qualifiers denoting that individuals may exercise the right by themselves."

If you are correct, and amendments require "qualifiers denoting that individuals may exercise" a right, then there should be qualifiers in amendment 4. There aren't any such qualifiers in amendment 4, yet individuals are quite able to exercise the right it protects.

Your "theory" doesn't hold water.

If a State constitution secures a right of "the people" to be free from searches, could a citizen of a different state claim protection? No, because he doesn't belong to the collective body referred to in that constitution. It doesn't mean just "people."

I would say that in your example, "the people" would be any person subject to the laws of that jurisdiction,

"Both refer to the collective body which holds the right, so they're BOTH collective rights. But they're NOT both applied in the same way. A citizen acting alone CANNOT regulate the police even though, as a citizen belonging to that body, he's free from unreasonable searches. This is what you guys fail to understand when looking at the U.S. Bill of Rights. The amendment dealing with the security of a free State isn't applied in the same way as the one dealing with unreasonable searches. If eligible to serve, citizens would be called to serve in a well regulated militia on BEHALF of "the people," the body which holds the right."

You sure do know how to play word games, I'll grant you that.

[Glenn Vardy]

298. More ignorance from beevul

I said:

Suppose the same state has these two provisions in it's constitution:
1. The people have the right to regulate the police.
2. The people have the right to be secure in their papers and effects.

Both refer to the collective body which holds the right, so they're BOTH collective rights. But they're NOT both applied in the same way. A citizen acting alone CANNOT regulate the police even though, as a citizen belonging to that body, he's free from unreasonable searches. This is what you guys fail to understand when looking at the U.S. Bill of Rights. The amendment dealing with the security of a free State isn't applied in the same way as the one dealing with unreasonable searches. If eligible to serve, citizens would be called to serve in a well regulated militia on BEHALF of "the people," the body which holds the right.

You sure do know how to play word games

Is that all you've got to say? With my explanation, "the people" in state Declaration of Rights and the US Bill of Rights is always a reference to a collective body. My argument holds water.

[Straw Man]

295. Like the Bismarck.

The people have the right to regulate the police.

Ah, the famous "regulate the police" amendment. Where can we find this one?

Don't confuse the functions of a political entity, i.e. a municipality, county, or state, with the rights of the people. Your "regulate the police" example is a red herring, since it is not one of the enumerated rights of "the people."

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It refers to "their persons," "their houses," "their papers" and "their effects." It also refers to the "persons" to be seized.

Yes. And the antecedent of every single "their" is "the people," and the "persons" to be seized are a subset of "the people," whose rights are protected. I can think of no clearer example of a right of "the people" being applied to individuals.

This is what you guys fail to understand when looking at the U.S. Bill of Rights. The amendment dealing with the security of a free State isn't applied in the same way as the one dealing with unreasonable searches. If eligible to serve, citizens would be called to serve in a well regulated militia on BEHALF of "the people," the body which holds the right.

Oh, yes: the "Second Amendment Exceptionalism" credo. Since you're such a fan of speculating on the intentions of the framers, let me ask this: Why, then, doesn't the second clause of the amendment read "... the right of the people to raise and arm militias shall not be infringed"?

[Glenn Vardy]

296. More untrue factoids from Strawman

Don't confuse the functions of a political entity, i.e. a municipality, county, or state, with the rights of the people. Your "regulate the police" example is a red herring, since it is not one of the enumerated rights of "the people."

Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776,
Declaration of Rights

III. That THE PEOPLE of this State have the SOLE, EXCLUSIVE and inherent RIGHT of governing and regulating the internal police of the same.
----------------

That's an enumerated right of "the people."

Yes. And the antecedent of every single "their" is "the people," and the "persons" to be seized are a subset of "the people," whose rights are protected. I can think of no clearer example of a right of "the people" being applied to individuals.

Didn't you understand my explanation of how right differ in their application? I even provided an example to prove it, but you've completely dismissed my explanation/example.

Oh, yes: the "Second Amendment Exceptionalism" credo.

You could say the same for the right of the people to regulate the police in my example. But it is a RIGHT that can only be exercised by the people in their collective capacity.

In every state constitution, "the people" is ALWAYS a reference to a collective body. My argument is that the U.S. Bill of Rights was written by the same men who framed those state constitutions and they used the same words to mean the same thing in the U.S. BoR. I'm not the one claiming they changed the understood meaning of "the people" just for the Second Amendment.

Since you're such a fan of speculating on the intentions of the framers,...

I provide documented evidence from the founding era. YOU guys talk a lot about "philosophers" and "theories" rather than the actual documented evidence. YOU'RE the one's who speculate on the intentions of the Framers, not me.

Why, then, doesn't the second clause of the amendment read "... the right of the people to raise and arm militias shall not be infringed"?

Because "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms" means the same thing. A natural right for all individuals to own guns for self defense would have looked NOTHING like the Second Amendment.

[Straw Man]

300. Wrong again.

Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776,
Declaration of Rights

III. That THE PEOPLE of this State have the SOLE, EXCLUSIVE and inherent RIGHT of governing and regulating the internal police of the same.

That's a state constitution, not the Bill of Rights. It simply means that the state, not the federal government, will regulate the police of that state. It refers to the respective jurisdictions of the different levels of government. That is NOT what the Bill of Rights is concerned with.

I fully understand your explanation of the variable application of the enumerated rights, and I reject it as based on nothing but your own flawed interpretation.

My argument is that the U.S. Bill of Rights was written by the same men who framed those state constitutions and they used the same words to mean the same thing in the U.S. BoR.

And that's an unsupported contention. You yourself have claimed that "the people" refers to different things in different amendments. How then are we supposed to take it on your word that "they used the same words to mean the same things"?

Again, the context is different. A state constitution serves to delineate a state's powers from the those of the federal government. The Bill or Rights defines and protects the rights of ALL citizens of the republic.

I provide documented evidence from the founding era.

Your argument is based on your own subjective interpretation of that evidence.

Because "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms" means the same thing.

No. It does not. You can spin it as hard as you want, but you can't make it mean that. It means what it says.

A natural right for all individuals to own guns for self defense would have looked NOTHING like the Second Amendment.

Yet several of the state constitutions provide exactly that, in very similar wording, a fact that you dismiss as irrelevant to the "thrust" of their meaning.

[sarisataka]

303. Ask about the Ninth Amendment

By such a definition it states that the collective People have unenumerated rights but individuals do not.

I gave up on this poster's "honest debate" when he ignored the parts of a quote that destroyed his argument to show a broader meaning of the quote. A strange variation of less is more.

[Glenn Vardy]

306. YOU ask.

Ask about the Ninth Amendment. By such a definition it states that the collective People have unenumerated rights but individuals do not.

Every state constitution at that time was full of collective rights. There's no reason to believe that the rights not given up by the people (retained) are individual rights.

Massachusetts Declaration of Rights:
IV.—THE PEOPLE of this Commonwealth have the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE RIGHT of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, AND RIGHT, which is not, or may not hereafter, be BY THEM (in their collective capacity) expressly delegated to the United States of America, in Congress assembled.

That's a right for one collective body. It's that body which retains rights by the Ninth Amendment, according to this.

[sarisataka]

321. Very well, Two questions

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms...

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms,...

Obama commenting on the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling of upholding an individual’s right to bear arms and revoking a handgun legislation in Washington, D.C
June 26, 2008, Associated Press

1)So are you correct, there is no individual right and the President and the Democratic Party Platform is wrong, or are they correct and you are just here to yank chains?

2)The other option is that they are simply pandering for votes in which case why should any of us support a party that has so little integrity it will lie about its position on Constitutional issues to win elections?

[Glenn Vardy]

307. Strawman playing ignorant

I fully understand your explanation of the variable application of the enumerated rights, and I reject it...

If you understand it, why do you reject it? You don't WANT to accept it, that's the problem.

.....as based on nothing but your own flawed interpretation.

You understand it, but it's flawed in what way? Again, you don't WANT to accept it.

I said: "My argument is that the U.S. Bill of Rights was written by the same men who framed those state constitutions and they used the same words to mean the same thing in the U.S. BoR."

And that's an unsupported contention.

This is just one of those things that doesn't need support.
The terms "every" or "each" "citizen," "person," "man," "member of society" etc were used in their own constitutions to refer to each individual. They always used "the people" when referring to the OBVIOUS collective rights. If they were aware of more suitable terms to refer to individuals, why didn't they use them in the U.S. BoR?

You yourself have claimed that "the people" refers to different things in different amendments. How then are we supposed to take it on your word that "they used the same words to mean the same things"?

Why are you saying that I'm claiming "the people" refers to different things in different amendments when you KNOW that I've CONSTANTLY said that "the people" is always a reference to a collective body? I thought you said you understood what I meant in my explanation of how rights differ in their application.

A state constitution serves to delineate a state's powers from the those of the federal government. The Bill or Rights defines and protects the rights of ALL citizens of the republic.

Why do you refuse to accept that State Declaration of Rights define and protect rights?

I said: "A natural right for all individuals to own guns for self defense would have looked NOTHING like the Second Amendment."

Yet several of the state constitutions provide exactly that, in very similar wording

Wrong. Not one state constitution at that time secured a right for all individuals to own guns for self defense. Every one was a militia provision dealing with the security of the state and/or the common defense.

[Straw Man]

309. Around and around and around we go.

If you understand it, why do you reject it?

Because it's wrong, for all the reasons I've already repeatedly stated. Don't confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.

This is just one of those things that doesn't need support.

I believe this sentence speaks volumes about your rhetorical misconceptions.

The terms "every" or "each" "citizen," "person," "man," "member of society" etc were used in their own constitutions to refer to each individual. They always used "the people" when referring to the OBVIOUS collective rights.

Yet in your interpretation of the Fourth, you state that its reference to "the people" should be interpreted to support an individual right because the possessive applied to "the people" is "their." Obvious? Lexicographers cringe.

You might just as well say that rights of "the people" are collective except where such an interpretation would weaken your argument. In such cases, they are individual. Does that about sum it up?

Not one state constitution at that time secured a right for all individuals to own guns for self defense.

Really? Then what are these?

Pennsylvania: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power."

Vermont: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."

Kentucky: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

[Glenn Vardy]

310. Oh, that's different

I said:
"Suppose the same state has these two provisions in it's constitution:
1. The people have the right to regulate the police.
2. The people have the right to be secure in their papers and effects.
Both refer to the collective body which holds the right, so they're BOTH collective rights. But they're NOT both applied in the same way. A citizen acting alone CANNOT regulate the police even though, as a citizen belonging to that body, he's free from unreasonable searches. This is what you guys fail to understand when looking at the U.S. Bill of Rights. The amendment dealing with the security of a free State isn't applied in the same way as the one dealing with unreasonable searches. If eligible to serve, citizens would be called to serve in a well regulated militia on BEHALF of "the people," the body which holds the right.

Strawman said:
I fully understand your explanation of the variable application of the enumerated rights, and I reject it...

I said:
If you understand it, why do you reject it? You don't WANT to accept it, that's the problem.

Because it's wrong, for all the reasons I've already repeatedly stated. Don't confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.

Q1. You disagree that not all rights are applied in the same way?
Q2. You still disagree when presented with examples?

Your stated reason for disagreement is just an excuse. They're BOTH collective RIGHTS of "the people" in a "Declaration of Rights" but both differ in their application.

[Glenn Vardy]

311. More question dodging from Strawman

I said:
"My argument is that the U.S. Bill of Rights was written by the same men who framed those state constitutions and they used the same words to mean the same thing in the U.S. BoR."

Strawman said
"And that's an unsupported contention."

I said:
"This is just one of those things that doesn't need support. (Support should be needed to explain changed meanings)
The terms "every" or "each" "citizen," "person," "man," "member of society" etc were used in their own constitutions to refer to each individual. They always used "the people" when referring to the OBVIOUS collective rights. If they were aware of more suitable terms to refer to individuals, why didn't they use them in the U.S. BoR?"

Yet in your interpretation of the Fourth, you state that its reference to "the people" should be interpreted to support an individual right because the possessive applied to "the people" is "their." Obvious? Lexicographers cringe.

Just like beevul, you're trying hard to distort my interpretation. I have CONSTANTLY said that rights of "the people" are collective rights, but here you are saying that I interpret the Fourth Amendment as securing an "individual right." ALL RIGHTS OF "THE PEOPLE" ARE COLLECTIVE RIGHTS, BUT THEY DIFFER IN THEIR APPLICATION.

And you snipped my question out of the excerpt when you replied to my post. The terms "every" or "each" "citizen," "person," "man," "member of society" etc were used in their own constitutions to refer to each individual.

Q. If they were aware of more suitable terms to refer to individuals, why didn't they use them in the U.S. BoR?

The Bouvier Law Dictionary:
PEOPLE: A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in its COLLECTIVE and political capacity.

STATE: This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient BODY of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into ONE BODY POLITIC; and the state, and the people of the state, are EQUIVALENT EXPRESSIONS .

BODY POLITIC: " ..As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take COLLECTIVELY the name, of PEOPLE, or nation; and INDIVIDUALLY they are CITIZENS..."
-----------------------

Black’s Law Dictionary
PEOPLE: A state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacity. The aggregate or mass of the individuals who constitute the state. In a more restricted sense, and as generally used in constitutional law, the entire BODY of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes.

SOVEREIGN PEOPLE: The political body, consisting of the entire number of citizens and qualified electors, who, in their COLLECTIVE capacity, possess the powers of sovereignty and exercise them through their chosen representatives.
------------------------

Sketches of American Policy By Noah Webster.
"This association of all the individuals of a community is called the body politic or State... The members, spoken of COLLECTIVELY, are called PEOPLE, spoken of SEVERALLY, they may be called CITIZENS."

[Straw Man]

314. The essence of your error

ALL RIGHTS OF "THE PEOPLE" ARE COLLECTIVE RIGHTS, BUT THEY DIFFER IN THEIR APPLICATION.

Correction: You think they should differ in their application. In fact, they don't, as the Supreme Court has decided and as President Barack Obama concurs.

“Let me be absolutely clear. Like most Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms.”

--http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/16/remarks-president-and-vice-president-gun-violence

[Glenn Vardy]

312. Collective and individual right comparison.

Really? Then what are these?

Pennsylvania: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power."

That's a militia provision. It's a collective right for the common defense.

In the same Declaration of Rights there is this right:
VIII. "That EVERY MEMBER of society hath a right TO BE PROTECTED in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expence OF THAT PROTECTION, and yield HIS PERSONAL SERVICE when necessary, or an equivalent thereto:... Nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of BEARING ARMS, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent."

There was an almost identical provision in Vermont.

Notice that they KNEW how to refer to each individual and could have used similar suitable terms to refer to individuals in the arms bearing provisions IF they intended those provisions to secure a right to carry guns for self defense.
Notice that they don't contain the word "keep."

[Straw Man]

315. You're funny.

Pennsylvania: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power."

That's a militia provision. It's a collective right for the common defense.

So you contend that "defence of themselves" is a collective right? And it is distinguished from the defense of the state because ... an army in the field might have to defend itself against marauding bandits?

[beevul]

316. He confuses collective protection of a right...

He confuses collective protection of a right, with "collective rights".

[blueridge3210]

318. I found it interesting

that he asserts that the right to petition the government for redress of grievances is a "collective" right and not individual. Unless I'm missing something, he is saying an individual cannot protest a government injustice; that only a group can do so. IANAL.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

317. I am quite sure...

...that GV isn't a reincarnation of Norm Crosby since Crosby isn't dead. But Glen reads about as well as Crosby speaks, at least on stage.

[Eleanors38]

322. Like miss-thrown Frisbees: 1 is no problem; a thousand, yuck. nt

[Glenn Vardy]

319. "Contend"

So you contend that "defence of themselves" is a collective right?

I don't just contend it's for the common defense, I've presented proof.

[Straw Man]

320. It would seem that ...

So you contend that "defence of themselves" is a collective right?

I don't just contend it's for the common defense, I've presented proof.

... you don't know what "proof" means.

[Glenn Vardy]

234. Messing with the text

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state....

....;but the reason for the right isn't to secure a well regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state.

Would that make sense?

[beevul]

252. Your implication is that it matters. It does not.

"....;but the reason for the right isn't to secure a well regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state."

"Would that make sense?"

Your implication is that it matters. It does not.

The law, as written, is the law, as it exists. The only people interested in rehashing any of this, are people like you, who wish to redefine and reinterpret a rule that binds government, into a rule that doesn't bind government nearly as much. Many of those people, even to the extent that it doesn't bind government at all.

The "reason for the right", isn't a binding condition on the restrictions placed upon government. It is a written justification for the amendment itself. Nothing more, nothing less.

“The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state....”

By your logic, the above would only apply to "the press". History on the other hand paints a different picture.

[Glenn Vardy]

255. THE purpose

It is a written justification for the amendment itself. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's THE purpose of the amendment.

Chief Justice John Marshall: “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect” Marbury v. Madison, (1803).

And I've already shown that just "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" would secure the exact same thing as "A well regulated militia is the proper/natural defense of a free state/country/government."

[beevul]

257. Nope.

All the original amendments have a purpose, which is stated in the preamble to the bill of rights itself. Here, I'll quote the entire thing here for you:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

"And I've already shown that just "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" would secure the exact same thing as "A well regulated militia is the proper/natural defense of a free state/country/government."

You haven't shown anything. And here you're trying to pretend that a sentence which restricts government and thus protects rights which can be exercised both individually and collectively, and a sentence which doesn't forbid government and thusly doesn't protect the same rights, say the same thing.

I think you need to take a refresher on the bill of rights, and perhaps take constitutional theory 101 while you're at it.

[Glenn Vardy]

260. "Abuse of it's powers"

Chief Justice John Marshall: “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect” Marbury v. Madison, (1803).

Nope. All the original amendments have a purpose

Why don't you address the point I made, which is "it cannot be presumed that" "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" "is intended to be without effect?"

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

Does this prove anything I said wrong? I've shown that the concerns raised were that Congress could abuse it's powers over the militia and destroy the militia through neglect.

[beevul]

262. Since you want to play the "quote a justice" game...

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Justice Robert H. Jackson of the Supreme Court 1943

"On the Right to Arms of Military Utility and the 2nd Amendment The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

Justice Joseph Story

And this from Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1856:


"It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

"I've shown that the concerns raised were that Congress could abuse it's powers over the militia and destroy the militia through neglect."

You may or may not have shown that, I really haven't paid attention to whether you have or haven't...because it doesn't matter.

Amendment 2 protects the possession, ownership, and lawful carry of firearms, with no respect to whether an individual is a militia member or not, because the militia "is composed of the body of the people", and is "necessary to the security of a free state".

The supreme court agrees, its binding law, your side lost.

Get over it.

[Glenn Vardy]

264. Joseph Story quote in context

As usual, gun right's interpreters only see the word "citizens" in Story's quote and refuse to see the context.

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890-91 (1833)

§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

To Story, a well regulated militia was justly considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic. And notice that Story considers that "the people" would not be "duly armed" without a "system of militia discipline" "regulations" and "organization."

[beevul]

268. You're so cute when you equivocate.

"To Story, a well regulated militia was justly considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic."

And yet, he chose to describe "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms..." instead of "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms..." as the "palladium of the liberties of a republic".

Forgive me if I take his words at face value rather than the value you choose to assign to them for everyone else...kind of like you do with amendment 2.


Your side lost glenn.

Heller and McDonald are enshrined law.

Oh, and I notice you said nothing about the other judges I quote.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

269. He's not answering me either

I figure he's due for another hibernation.

[jimmy the one]

270. GN's distorting justice story

beevul: And yet, he {joseph story} chose to describe "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms..." instead of "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms..." as the "palladium of the liberties of a republic".

Only when you take justice story intentionally out of context, and/or use the 2nd amendment mythology bible, can one reach beevul's conclusion.
In context read what justice story wrote:

Justice Jos Story, circa early 1800: The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace both from the enormous expenses with which they are attended and the facile means which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers to subvert the government or trample upon the rights of the people.
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers and will generally even if these are successful the first instance enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet though this truth would seem so clear and the importance of a well regulated would seem so undeniable it cannot be disguised that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline and a disposition from a sense of its burthens to be rid of all regulations.
How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger that indifference may lead to disgust and disgust to contempt and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Story

Observe & learn, beevul, from Justice Story's above paragraph, these two sentences:
1 The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections and domestic usurpations of power by rulers
2 The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers

Fairly obviously was Justice Story speaking of one & the same entity - the militia.
Individuals with guns would be more a 'moral' reason for rulers to trump up some charge to suppress them, while the people as militia being the strong moral & physical check, the proper interpretation.

Also read this from the para, beevul: How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization it is difficult to see.

Why would Justice Story say that if it were an individual rkba he was referring to? why would he say that? Obviously his entire paragraph referred to the militia, not an individual rkba.
You demonstrated your naivete' & lack of understanding what Justice Story was about, beevul, by citing your 2nd amendment mythology. Just like scalia, trying to twist & distort what justice story meant.

[beevul]

271. Poor poor Jimmy...

"Only when you take justice story intentionally out of context, and/or use the 2nd amendment mythology bible, can one reach beevul's conclusion."

Says you.

"Fairly obviously was Justice Story speaking of one & the same entity - the militia."

You're habitually wrong.

Exhibit A:

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered..."

In the above sentence hes speaking about a RIGHT.


In another different sentence hes speaking about an entity known as a militia.

So very clearly and obviously, hes speaking about two completely different, no matter how well connected, things.

A right, and a militia, are two different things jimmy, no matter how much you and your "wall of irrelevant text" buddies try to obfuscate and spin it otherwise.


Tell me more about my naivete' & lack of understanding, jimmy.


Settled law, buddy. Too bad, so sad.

"Also read this from the para, beevul: How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization it is difficult to see. Why would Justice Story say that if it were an individual rkba he was referring to?"

He was referring to the collective exercise of the right. Just because he said something about the collective exercise of the right, does not mean there is no individual exercise of the right.

And Like I said, amendment 2 protects both the individual and collective exercise of the right in question. It has no qualifiers exempting the individual exercise of the right from protection of infringement. You can argue and argue and post equivocated misattributed misinterpreted walls of garbage text til the cows come home, but you cant change that simple fact.

[jimmy the one]

272. the truth so clear

beevul: You're habitually wrong.

If I'm habitually wrong, surely you can post some examples where I'm demonstrably & objectively wrong. Not just wrong because you & some other prejudiced gun enthusiasts subjectively say I'm wrong, but objectively wrong. Post some examples.

beevul: Exhibit A: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered..." In the above sentence hes speaking about a RIGHT.
In another different sentence hes speaking about an entity known as a militia.

The entire paragraph is militia centric, & he inserts the rkba sentence into the militia centric.

beevul: A right, and a militia, are two different things jimmy, no matter how much you and your "wall of irrelevant text" buddies try to obfuscate and spin it otherwise.

You play with words, manipulation, casuistry; Observe spin doctor beevul, how justice story meant it:

story, excerpted: The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers and will generally even if these are successful the first instance enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations.

What TRUTH is story referring to in the emboldening above, beevul? the truth which he wrote in the sentence just before it; the truth which he then describes as 'the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable', pertains to the sentence just before it, so he is equating the citizen's rkba with the militia.
Right there in front of your face, beevul.

[beevul]

273. And wholly irrelevant to the matter at hand.

"so he is equating the citizen's rkba with the militia."

Understandable, since an individual NEEDS the right to keep and bear arms, to be enabled for militia service.

The collective exercise of the right can not happen without individuals exercising the right.

If anything, that simply bolsters the individual rights argument.




Its all wholly irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Its settled law bud.

Even justice Stevens said as much.

[jimmy the one]

274. more guns, more lies

beevul: The collective exercise of the right can not happen without individuals exercising the right.

Where does it say that in the original 'arms' decrees by the original 13 states? (8 which had arms decrees)
How did these early states exercise their common defense if it was meant for individuals?
None of these predecessors to 2ndA contain anything incumbent upon an individual rkba.

Virginia (Jun12, 1776) That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armi...
DEL (Sept11,1776) That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free govt.

PENNSY (Sep28, 1776) XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing ar..
MARYLAND (Nov 11, 1776) XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.

NOR CAROLINA (Dec18, 1776) XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies..
VERMONT (July 8, 1777) XV. That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State…

MASSA (Oct25, 1780) XVII. The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.
NEW HAMPSHIRE (June 2, 1784) XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor_2nd_amendment.htm

beevul: Its settled law bud. Even justice Stevens said as much.

Interested in what he said, pls post link.
And still waiting for an example or two of where I'm 'habitually wrong', as you put it. Put your money where your mouth is, or retract your ad hominem.
Thanks beevul, for reminding me 'MORE GUNS, MORE LIES'

[beevul]

279. You really need an authority to answer that for you?

beevul: The collective exercise of the right can not happen without individuals exercising the right.

Jimmy: Where does it say that in the original 'arms' decrees by the original 13 states?

You need someone, or a document, to tell you that this is the case? You really need an authority to answer that for you?

Try using your own brain jimmy. A group can not exist without individuals, and if you need a document or an authoritative word to understand that, then you have bigger problems than the gun issue by far.

"How did these early states exercise their common defense if it was meant for individuals?"

Irrelevant.

"None of these predecessors to 2ndA contain anything incumbent upon an individual rkba. "

Irrelevant.

"And still waiting for an example or two of where I'm 'habitually wrong', as you put it. Put your money where your mouth is, or retract your ad hominem."

I stand by what I said. Everyone here who reads these threads can judge for themselves. I might have considered giving you a pass and not pointing it out like I do so many of your colleagues, if I didn't think you were a sneaky underhanded poster, a conclusion I drew from your "creative" abuse use of the reply system.

[Glenn Vardy]

277. One man militias?

He was referring to the collective exercise of the right. Just because he said something about the collective exercise of the right, does not mean there is no individual exercise of the right.

But you have to pull any reference to the individual exercise of the right out of the air. You need to show that an amendment dealing with State security was intended to be exercised by an individual acting alone.

[beevul]

280. I'm sorry, you clearly don't understand any of this.

Last edited Sat Nov 1, 2014, 05:58 PM - Edit history (1)

"But you have to pull any reference to the individual exercise of the right out of the air."

Do you think the only rights people have are rights that have been enumerated?

Repeat this as many times as it takes Glenn:

ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THE PEOPLE

"You need to show that an amendment dealing with State security was intended to be exercised by an individual acting alone."

No, Glenn. Amendment 2 authorizes NOTHING. Amendment 2 forbids government from infringing on rights which belong to the people.

YOU need to show why this restriction only applies at the collective level, and you can't.

You got nothing on that except non sequitur and mudding the waters.

[Glenn Vardy]

282. "The People" is NOT "people."

I said: "You need to show that an amendment dealing with State security was intended to be exercised by an individual acting alone."

YOU need to show why this restriction only applies at the collective level, and you can't. You got nothing on that except non sequitur and mudding the waters.

The Bouvier Law Dictionary:

PEOPLE: A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in its COLLECTIVE and political capacity.

STATE: This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient BODY of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into ONE BODY POLITIC; and the state, and the people of the state, are EQUIVALENT EXPRESSIONS .

BODY POLITIC: " ..As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take COLLECTIVELY the name, of PEOPLE, or nation; and INDIVIDUALLY they are CITIZENS..."
-----------------------

Black’s Law Dictionary
PEOPLE: A state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacity. The aggregate or mass of the individuals who constitute the state. In a more restricted sense, and as generally used in constitutional law, the entire BODY of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes.

SOVEREIGN PEOPLE: The political body, consisting of the entire number of citizens and qualified electors, who, in their COLLECTIVE capacity, possess the powers of sovereignty and exercise them through their chosen representatives.
------------------------

Sketches of American Policy By Noah Webster.
"This association of all the individuals of a community is called the body politic or State... The members, spoken of COLLECTIVELY, are called PEOPLE, spoken of SEVERALLY, they may be called CITIZENS."
----------------------------

But YOU think that the term "the People" in these legal documents is being used in the same way as you saying you'll invite some "people" round for a party. You're SO wrong.

[beevul]

284. "You're SO wrong." Meet amendment 4.

"But YOU think that the term "the People" in these legal documents is being used in the same way as you saying you'll invite some "people" round for a party. You're SO wrong."

Meet my friend, Amendment 4:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Say, do you see any "qualifiers denoting that individuals may exercise the right by themselves" in the above?

The rest of what you wrote, was just as I said:

Non sequitur and mudding the waters.

So predictable.

[blueridge3210]

285. Just curious:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Can this right, said to belong to the "people", only exercised by a group or by one person?

[Glenn Vardy]

287. Free government

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Can this right, said to belong to the "people", only exercised by a group or by one person?

Freedom of speech and religion are individual rights. The right to assemble to petition the Government is a collective right of the body of "the people." Had they wanted this right to apply to all individuals, they would have continued with: "..;or the right to peaceably assemble etc" They deliberately inserted "the people" at that point. At the heart of the right of the people to assemble and to be secure in their papers is free government.

[blueridge3210]

288. So, in your interpretation,

one person is not free to petition the government for redress of grievances? This can only be done by a group of people?

[Glenn Vardy]

290. Right to "assemble"

So, in your interpretation, one person is not free to petition the government for redress of grievances? This can only be done by a group of people?

The right is for the people to ASSEMBLE to petition the government. I think the original draft said something about for their "common" grievances and to "instruct their representatives." It's collective in nature.

[beevul]

294. Perfect example of how you play fast and loose with the facts.

"The right is for the people to ASSEMBLE to petition the government. I think the original draft said something about for their "common" grievances and to "instruct their representatives." It's collective in nature"

Only you would take a sentence which clearly refers to two distinct and separate rights, and interpret it as only referring to one right:

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Clearly, the right of assemble, and the right to petition government are two different rights.

One need not "assemble" to petition government, and one need not petition government, to assemble.

Note: all of the above can be exercised as an individual.

[Glenn Vardy]

297. Dismissing/ignoring points made.

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Note: all of the above can be exercised as an individual.

You must have completely dismissed, for no reason, my explanation AND example of how rights differ in their application. You also ignored this from my previous post: "Freedom of speech and religion are individual rights. The right to assemble to petition the Government is a collective right of the body of "the people." Had they wanted this right to apply to all individuals, they would have continued with: "..;or the right to peaceably assemble etc" They deliberately inserted "the people" at that point. At the heart of the right of the people to assemble and to be secure in their papers is free government."

Why do you think they didn't just continue with: ";or the right to peaceably assemble?" Do you think that the right to assemble to petition government was aimed at a particular collective body, or do ALL individual "people" have the right to assemble to petition the government?

[Straw Man]

301. Now you're just being silly.

Do you think that the right to assemble to petition government was aimed at a particular collective body, or do ALL individual "people" have the right to assemble to petition the government?

One person can't "assemble." The amendment protects the right of individuals to "assemble" into a body.

[Glenn Vardy]

289. Party guest.

I said: "But YOU think that the term "the People" in these legal documents is being used in the same way as you saying you'll invite some "people" round for a party. You're SO wrong."

Meet my friend, Amendment 4... The rest of what you wrote, was... mudding the waters.

Me mudding the water?????? I'm presenting EVIDENCE to back up what I say. You've ignored that evidence to muddy the water with this side-step.

If "the people" in the Fourth Amendment means "people," as in, inviting some "people" round for a party, why didn't Verdugo-Urquidez have Fourth Amendment protection? He could be one of the "people" at a party, couldn't he?

[beevul]

299. Yes, you muddying the water.

" I'm presenting EVIDENCE to back up what I say. You've ignored that evidence to muddy the water with this side-step. "

No, you're presenting evidence you believe backs up what you say. Theres a difference.

"If "the people" in the Fourth Amendment means "people," as in, inviting some "people" round for a party, why didn't Verdugo-Urquidez have Fourth Amendment protection? He could be one of the "people" at a party, couldn't he?"

Your answer to the 4th amendment issue is to cite Verdugo-Urquidez...well...color me underwhelmed:


United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990),[1] was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that Fourth Amendment protections do not apply to searches and seizures by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien in a foreign country.

[Glenn Vardy]

305. Didn't belong to that body.

I said: "If "the people" in the Fourth Amendment means "people," as in, inviting some "people" round for a party, why didn't Verdugo-Urquidez have Fourth Amendment protection? He could be one of the "people" at a party, couldn't he?"

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that Fourth Amendment protections do not apply to searches and seizures by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien in a foreign country.

He didn't belong to the body mentioned in the Fourth Amendment. But he could be one of the "people" invited to a party, couldn't he? Answer THAT question. There IS a difference between "the people" and some "people."

[beevul]

313. Other individuals did though.

You can't have "that body" without individuals Glenn.

In Heller, even the dissent says your theory is wrong:

"The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals."

In case you need help, the second sentence in the above quote is the money quote.

[Eleanors38]

323. Right there: "...describing the person..."

Government has coercive powers. The people are threatened by those powers, but have rights, when redressed, which are recognized individually; in fact, the government is Required to recognize them individually in 4A. Why would this explicit recognition of an individual right within or of a "peoples' right" in the Fourth, somehow be different in the other rights?

The people have a RKBA that is necessarily individual. They are also subject to the laws governing militia (fed and state), which government concedes is a check on its "self." How would government's self-recognized check have any vitality if the RKBA were NOT individual, but instead conditioned, circumscribed, and subject to redefinition by a clause that is in reality that check? It can't.

The militia clause is not a poison pill to an individual right.

[Glenn Vardy]

291. More muddy water from beevul

I said: "You need to show that an amendment dealing with State security was intended to be exercised by an individual acting alone."

No, Glenn. Amendment 2 authorizes NOTHING.

You can't show that an amendment dealing with State security was intended to be exercised by an individual acting alone, so you muddy the water with this red-herring. Where do I say anything about the Second Amendment authorizing anything?

[beevul]

293. There is no amendment dealing with state security glenn.

Last edited Mon Nov 3, 2014, 01:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Amendment 2 deals with restricting government, no more no less.

Your implication, is that an amendment which restricts government, contained in a long list of amendments which restrict government, needs to enumerate "exceptions" where rights can be exercised by individuals.

Which is complete and utter nonsense, of the most preposterous sort.

Negative charters of rights don't work that way.

They work instead, by enumerating restrictions on government, and the exceptions under which government may proceed, such as in amendment 4.

" Where do I say anything about the Second Amendment authorizing anything?"

What a short memory you have:

"For your interpretation to be true, there has to be qualifiers denoting that individuals may exercise the right by themselves."

"Qualifiers that denote that individuals may exercise the right" is what most people would call "authorization". Play word games if you like, but the implication is clear - you asserted that people need to be "authorized" to exercise a right as an individual, within a document that has no other purpose than to enumerate restrictions against government exercise of power with the goal of protecting from governmental interference, the very rights you claim individuals need constitutional authorization to exercise.

We all (apparently other than you) know that's not the way the document works.

[Glenn Vardy]

304. "Qualifiers qualifiers qualifiers qualifiers"

Qualifiers blah blah blah.. authorization blah blah blah.. word games blah blah blah..

Below are excerpts of beevul continuously going on and on about "qualifiers."

Where in any of that, do you read that "shall not be infringed" refers to what government shall not do, strictly in the collective capacity vs individual? I don't see any qualifiers there...
-------------------------

In the case of amendment 2, government is forbidden from infringing on those rights, with no specificity or qualifiers denoting that it only applies in the collective sense.
--------------------------------

In a society with a negative charter of rights, it is government which would need the qualifier denoting under which circumstances they are allowed to disregard any particular rule, such as amendment 2,.... Where in amendment 4 are the qualifiers denoting that individuals may exercise the right by themselves?
----------------------------

And Like I said, amendment 2 protects both the individual and collective exercise of the right in question. It has no qualifiers exempting the individual exercise of the right from protection of infringement.
-------------------

Meet my friend, Amendment 4:... Say, do you see any "qualifiers denoting that individuals may exercise the right by themselves" in the above?
----------------------

(My quote) " Where do I say anything about the Second Amendment authorizing anything?"

What a short memory you have:
(Beevul quoting me) "For your interpretation to be true, there has to be qualifiers denoting that individuals may exercise the right by themselves."

Isn't it clear that beevul is the one playing word games. He/she has gone on and on about "qualifiers" and "authorization" until I answered a question using his/her word.

"Qualifiers that denote that individuals may exercise the right" is what most people would call "authorization". Play word games if you like, but the implication is clear - you asserted that people need to be "authorized" to exercise a right as an individual

Not only has he/she fabricated what my position is, he/she has fabricated a quote I haven't said.

To put this into context, when I was drawn into saying "for your interpretation to be true, there has to be qualifiers denoting that individuals may exercise the right by themselves," what I meant was that there's only a reference to a collective body in the amendment. beevul said "In the case of amendment 2, government is forbidden from infringing on those rights, with no specificity or qualifiers denoting that it only applies in the collective sense." Then I replied with the following post:

For your interpretation to be true, there has to be qualifiers denoting that individuals may exercise the right by themselves.

The Bouvier Law Dictionary:

PEOPLE: A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in its COLLECTIVE and political capacity.

STATE: This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient BODY of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into ONE BODY POLITIC; and the state, and the people of the state, are EQUIVALENT EXPRESSIONS .

BODY POLITIC: " ..As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take COLLECTIVELY the name, of PEOPLE, or nation; and INDIVIDUALLY they are CITIZENS..."
-----------------------

Black’s Law Dictionary
PEOPLE: A state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacity. The aggregate or mass of the individuals who constitute the state. In a more restricted sense, and as generally used in constitutional law, the entire BODY of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes.

SOVEREIGN PEOPLE: The political body, consisting of the entire number of citizens and qualified electors, who, in their COLLECTIVE capacity, possess the powers of sovereignty and exercise them through their chosen representatives.
------------------------

Sketches of American Policy By Noah Webster.
"This association of all the individuals of a community is called the body politic or State... The members, spoken of COLLECTIVELY, are called PEOPLE, spoken of SEVERALLY, they may be called CITIZENS."

beevul ignores all this and plays games with the word "qualifiers" in my post.

[Glenn Vardy]

275. Citizen soldiers

And yet, he chose to describe "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms..." instead of "the right of the militia.."

He chose to use the word "citizens" rather than the ACTUAL words "the People." The citizens he refers to are the citizen soldiers of a well regulated militia.

Oh, and I notice you said nothing about the other judges I quote.

A rant by a judge who didn't delve into the history of the drafting of the Second Amendment because it wasn't a Second Amendment case.

[samsingh]

77. you are absolutely right

thanks for posting

[HALO141]

91. Not even

close.

[samsingh]

104. agreed

[ileus]

116. absolutely incorrect