Would you hand in your firearms?

[LibLabUK]

Poll question: Would you hand in your firearms?

If a constitutional ammendment was passed and a federal law, that required the surrender of all firearms, enacted; would you hand yours in?

[goju]

1. Is this an attempt to dispel the notion of

"law abiding" gun owners? If so, this isnt a good measure. I recognize you dont view gun ownership as a right, but I certainly do and most RKBA'ers here probably think the same. If they pass an ammendment taking away one of our rights, then the country as we know it is gone.

Same vote for taking any other right the constitution is meant to protect.

[LibLabUK]

2. Not at all..

I was just interested.

"Same vote for taking any other right the constitution is meant to protect."

So, the Constitution, although within it is contained the instructions and regulations necessary for new ammendments, is immutable?

[goju]

3. Not at all

But fundamental rights, speech, religion, "unreasonable search and seizure", RKBA, those are non negotiable in my eyes.

Ammending the constitution to further protect or grant rights is absolutely a good idea, depending. For instance, an ammendment granting/protecting the right of citizens to marry the person they choose would be a good idea.

Any ammendment that takes rights "away" from the citizens probably wont get my support.

[library_max]

4. Except that it's a made-up right.

RKBAers always forget the "well-regulated militia" clause. US v. Miller established that the Second Amendment can only be interpreted in the context of maintaining and making effective the militia. And there ain't no armed citizen militia no more. Every US court case that still stands has denied an individual RKBA.

[slackmaster]

5. You're barking up the wrong tree as far as I'm concerned

For me the right to keep and bear arms is a subset of the right to own, say, and do anything that hasn't been prohibited by due process. I'm pro-RKBA on libertarian grounds.

Every US court case that still stands has denied an individual RKBA.

They may have denied that the Second Amendment protects the individual RKBA, but no court has said there is no individual RKBA.

[library_max]

7. So where does it come from? Your imagination?

I have a gun, therefore I think I have a right to a gun?

[slackmaster]

8. It comes from the fact that we are independent, free people

Sorry if the concept is over your head.

[library_max]

10. Not over my head at all.

You made up a right and you think you are justified in doing so. It's really not complicated.

[slackmaster]

13. If you insist on a citation then refer to my favorite Amendment

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Ninth Amendment was written just to address confusion like yours, library_max. We have the right to say, own, or do ANYTHING that hasn't been proscribed by due process of law. The fact that certain rights are enumerated does not diminish any other rights. All rights exist except those which society as a whole has decided through the political process must be curtailed.

If you think people shouldn't be allowed to own a particular type of gun or guns in general the burden is squarely on your shoulders to justify whatever restriction you are proposing. I don't have to prove the existence of the right to keep and bear arms. I have that right and so do you (unless you are a convicted felon, etc.) because no law exists to say we don't.

The Democratic National Committee officially agrees with me on this issue. If the DNC ever says we don't have any right to keep and bear arms I'll be one of the first to bail out and declare myself an independent voter.

[Vladimir]

15. But this gets us nowhere

if the only difference between 'the right to kill' and 'the right to keep and bear arms' is that one has been denied by society and the other hasn't, then all rights are social constructs (a point on which I would agree with you wholeheartedly). But in that case, it makes no real sense to talk about the 'right' to do something, the discussion should be on whether we as a society wish to allow something to be done.

The normal discusssion of rights seems to me more a discussion of rights specifically protected by the constitution, which is a different matter.

[slackmaster]

34. Under the US system society can only restristrict behavior

Our entire system is structured around the notion that people are free to say and do as they please. The set of "permitted" behaviors is necessarily boundless. Laws can only enumerate that which is not permitted.

The normal discusssion of rights seems to me more a discussion of rights specifically protected by the constitution, which is a different matter.

The Ninth Amendment pretty well blows that idea out of the water, Vladimir.

[Vladimir]

36. Yes I agree with point one

indeed unless you are of a religious bent, I see no other way in which rights could be handled anywhere. My point about specifically protected rights is that in some cases, the state acts as a guarantor of a certain subset of rights. So for example with the right to life, there is no right to life. It exists only because we as a society have decided to guarantee this right to our citizens, in America's case through the constitution, elsewhere otherwise.

When people talk about rights in general, and the RKBA in particular, it seems to me that they are talking about such rights which we as a society have decided to expressly protect.

[library_max]

55. That just isn't so.

There are rights categorically protected by the Constitution, which would require a Constitutional Amendment to disturb, such as the right to free speech, jury trial, and to avoid self-incrimination. You're trying to place the right to spit on the sidewalk or to eat a Twinkie right up there with freedom of speech, religion, press, etc. It just isn't so.

[slackmaster]

56. You are mistaken again

There are rights categorically protected by the Constitution, which would require a Constitutional Amendment to disturb, such as the right to free speech...

I've got news for you: The right to free speech has been restricted many times without a Constitutional amendment. Examples are obvious.

...jury trial

Tell it to the detainees at Guantanamo.

...and to avoid self-incrimination.

That's one of the few that remain pretty much intact. A court order is required to go through your belongings, tap your phone, search your home, etc. Oh yeah, the Patriot Act changed things so you can be notified after the fact of a search.

You're trying to place the right to spit on the sidewalk or to eat a Twinkie right up there with freedom of speech, religion, press, etc.

Nice Straw Man. What I actually said was that all rights exist except those that have been curtailed by due process of law.

[library_max]

59. The courts have decided, are deciding, or will decide all the exceptions

you have noted. But the RKBA has already been decided quite thoroughly - No to an individual RKBA outside the context of the militia.

And there's no straw man. You are trying to pretend that the Ninth Amendment places any action which is not presently illegal (such as spitting on the sidewalk in many places and eating a Twinkie just about anywhere I know of) on the same level as Constitutionally-protected freedoms of speech, religion, jury trial, etc.

[slackmaster]

67. I can't believe what I'm reading here

No to an individual RKBA outside the context of the militia.

From everything you and others have posted in that regard, it seems to me (assuming for the sake of argument that you have provided a complete and balanced picture of what the courts have said) that the second amendment is not specifically protective of an individual RKBA outside the context of an armed state militia.

That is NOT the same thing as saying there is no individual RKBA at all.

...You are trying to pretend that the Ninth Amendment places any action which is not presently illegal (such as spitting on the sidewalk in many places and eating a Twinkie just about anywhere I know of) on the same level as Constitutionally-protected freedoms of speech, religion, jury trial, etc.

Yes, that IS a Straw Man. All I've said was that all rights that have not been curtailed by due process exist. I did not say that, for example, the right to crap in the national forest in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations has the same stature as the right to trial by jury.

[library_max]

96. So individual RKBA is equivalent to the right to eat a Twinkie?

Perfectly OK constitutionally for either to be taken away by any official statute or regulation?

[slackmaster]

97. Let us know when the Twinkie ban gets enacted

There's much more to gun ownership than the individual RKBA. Guns are personal property. Taking away from people that which they already own requires due process and just compensation.

[skippythwndrdog]

130. A twinkie ban just could happen!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2302199

Also, remember the "Big Mac lawsuits"?

Some of the worst nannys won't stop until we're all disarmed vegans shopping at Sharper Image while wearing only plant product clothing.

[library_max]

17. Refer to the original post.

What LibLabUK described was due process of law. So if guns were outlawed by due process of law, would you hand yours in? The Ninth Amendment would be irrelevant in that hypothetical case.

[slackmaster]

32. I cannot honestly answer LibLabUK's question

It's a hypothetical without enough information for me to make a firm decision one way or another. There would have to be a lot more to the end of gun ownership in the USA than the government simply sending "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in!" :D

I generally abide by laws, including ones I don't like e.g. California assault weapon registration.

In order to comply with the Fifth Amendment's requirement for "just compensation" we would have to be at a minimum paid the fair market cash value of the guns we turn in. LibLabUK didn't address how that would be handled, or what kind of guarantees of personal security the government would have to provide to take the place of firearms that people use for self-defense.

LibLabUK's question is an attempt to force a complex issue into overly simple terms, therfore I cannot answer it as presented.

[Vladimir]

35. You know slack, we are about to agree on something

again - context is important. In answering the question I assumed that a progressive government would be enacting the changes and that matters such as compensation, safety provisions, amnesties etc. would be included as a matter of course, but you are right to point out that this is not necessarily true.

[TX-RAT]

54. I agree, the questions way to broad.

Reason, circumstances, and conditions, play to large a part. It's unanswerable at this point.

[Bill ClintonII]

178. Yes, just like making up...

a so-called, yet non existent right to abortion (murdering the helpless unborn)and some think they are justified in doing so. Not complicated at all, really. The pro-choice faction in the Democratic party, represented by such extremists as Hilary Clinton, can repeat the lie all they want that there is a constitutional right to abortion, based on a non-existent right to privacy, that some weirdo judge 40 odd years ago said exists, but that does not make it so. Regards, Bill

[UpsideDownFlag]

221. er...i hope the RKBAers don't start using your arguments...

it'll be less fun then.

[goju]

6. Not exactly

Let me ask this first though. Do you always trust and agree with the SCOTUS? Can you think of any occassion, like within the last 4 years, where the SCOTUS might not have acted in the interest of the people, or upheld the constitution as they are sworn to do? I never could understand cheerleading for the SCOTUS on one issue, or cherrypicking certain issues I should say, when other decisions have clearly highlighted their propensity to be a political tool and just as subject to the social concerns of the times as any "legislative" body.

Nevertheless, U v Miller was remanded. Why? Well, they did in fact reinterpret the 2nd to protect the RKBA within the context of a state militia but remember the timeframe here, (gangland murders and organized crime of which Miller was a part); its pertinent as to why they may have made such a decision. But, they never required Miller to show that he was a part of a militia. That was assumed. The only question was, did his shotgun have a role in the militia. They were not able to rule on whether his shotgun had any "reasonable" relationship to the maintenance of a militia so they remanded it to the lower court. Unfortunately, Miller was killed before he could see the case through.

"And there ain't no armed citizen militia no more."

Therein lies the dispute, at least for those who are still hung up on US v Miller.

I tend to think that US v Miller was more about the social ills of the time than about interpreting the constitution. Nearly every scholar asked has parsed the wording of the second to mean that it does not GRANT a right to keep and bear arms, it assumes a pre-existing right and the 2nd only serves to protect that pre-existing right. The militia part of it is secondary. I will provide a few links on those scholars but Im sure you have seen them already(?)

[library_max]

9. Miller was the watershed case.

It's the case cited in every Second Amendment case since. So it's a little hard to support the contention that it was a judicial aberration caused by the politics of the time (like, for example, Bush v. Gore was).

As for the militia assumption, Miller was simply decided on the firmest legal grounds. Judges tend to do that. If there are many reasons for a ruling, they often just go with the one that is least disputable. But Miller was decided in 1939, a long time ago, before the US entered World War II, before the modern military, before the end of the draft. Some soldiers still rode into combat on horses in 1939, for godsake. The militia was still a viable concept then. It isn't now.

You can cite all the scholars you want. For every issue, it is easy to find equal and opposite scholars. But the law isn't decided by scholars, it's decided by the courts. And the US courts are unanimous on the point that there is no RKBA outside the militia. Not just present courts, but every court that has ever heard a Second Amendment case (and not subsequently been overturned). Bush v. Gore was an aberration. US v. Miller was not.

[goju]

11. Well that is convenient, if not consistent

You get to decide that Miller was NOT an abberation, but 2000 was? You recognize that politics DO influence the SCOTUS, but flatly deny that politics palyed a role in Miller?

The reason I brought up the scholarly approach is because, overwhelmingly, academic scholars have looked at the language and interpreted it to mean a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. I know scholars dont decide laws, but they are the experts on usage. And they tend to be less politically motivated than the courts.

[library_max]

18. Miller is backed up by a large number of subsequent cases.

Not so Bush v. Gore. If you can't see the difference, it can only be because you don't want to.

As for scholars, I'm sure the overwhelming majority of the scholars you read argue that gun ownership is a right. But that begs the question - what about the scholars you don't read?

[goju]

26. How could Bush v Gore be cited?

That would necessitate another presidential election, or at least a general election, wouldnt it? Its only 4 years old. To suggest that the number of times Miller has been cited or reaffirmed has some relevance on the actual merits of the ruling, or lack thereof, is absurd. Im quite sure you can see THAT difference. But how many times has it been "backed up"? I would like to see some numbers on that.

Ive read ALOT on the interpretation of the second, have you? Oddly enough, MOST scholarly evaluations come down on the side of a "pre existing right", with the militia clause secondary. Id be happy to read any academic dispute to an individual RKBA but, they are kind of hard to find. I wonder why? Maybe you can provide me with a few?

[library_max]

58. Bush v. Gore actually can't be used as a precedent.

The majority opinion includes an escape clause, indicating that their crack-brained interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause was relevant for that one case only: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

And of course there have been plenty of elections since Bush v. Gore. If non-identical rules for recording, tabulating, and counting votes really did violate the Equal Protection Clause, there would be violations in every statewide election and many county and local elections nationwide every year. That's why the Scalia Five put in that escape clause - because general application of their interpretation would be ridiculous.

There's nothing absurd about pointing out that Miller is the watershed Second Amendment case. All the subsequent cases have been based on it. Read the decisions and you will see.

As for scholars, here are a few to get you started. Saul Cornell, Michael Bellesiles, Jack Rakove, Carl T. Bogus, Richard M. Aborn, Keith A. Ehrman, Denis A. Henigan, and Samuel Fields. And here are some links:

historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5200
www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/01/guns45.html
lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/76-1
bedfordstmartins.com/usingseries/hovey/cornell.htm
www.joycefdn.org/programs/gunviolence/gunviolencemain-fs.html

On that last one, you have to click on "articles" to see the articles - not possible to link directly.

[goju]

66. Then why did you bring it up?

"The majority opinion includes an escape clause, indicating that their crack-brained interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause was relevant for that one case only: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

And of course there have been plenty of elections since Bush v. Gore. If non-identical rules for recording, tabulating, and counting votes really did violate the Equal Protection Clause, there would be violations in every statewide election and many county and local elections nationwide every year. That's why the Scalia Five put in that escape clause - because general application of their interpretation would be ridiculous."

What was the point of highlighting how many times Miller has been reaffirmed compared to Bush v Gore than? If you knew it couldnt be used as precedent, why draw the comparison between the two?

"There's nothing absurd about pointing out that Miller is the watershed Second Amendment case. All the subsequent cases have been based on it. Read the decisions and you will see."

Thats not what I said was absurd. You may claim Miller was a watershed case, no argument here. I simply pointed out that making a comparison between Miller and Bush v Gore in terms of how many times each has been cited, or "backed up" is absurd.

Still reading the links....

[library_max]

99. I didn't bring up Bush v. Gore - you did.

Here are your sentences from your post #6:

"Do you always trust and agree with the SCOTUS? Can you think of any occassion, like within the last 4 years, where the SCOTUS might not have acted in the interest of the people, or upheld the constitution as they are sworn to do?"

Now are you going to try and pretend that you weren't referring to Bush v. Gore? If so, what under heaven were you referring to?

When Rush Limbaugh had a TV show, he once did a line about "the new White House dog" and flashed a picture of Chelsea Clinton on the screen. When deluged with angry responses, he claimed that a technician had made a mistake and put up the wrong picture. Question: what picture could he possibly have intended to put up that would have made that line funny? It was a plain insult to everybody's intelligence that he clung to a false "deniability."

And now you're doing the same.

[goju]

110. Lets back up

I brought up Bush v Gore to highlight the fact that the SCOTUS is, has been, and always will be a political body and so influenced by various societal factors.

YOU made the comparison between how many times each has been cited in subsequent court cases. Since you knew that comparison was unfair and illogical, I ask why you brought up the "comparison" in court citings.

My question still stands. If you are willing to put full faith in the SCOTUS, then I can understand your unwavering support of Miller. If you, like most people, recognize just how political that legislative judicial body can be, than you MIGHT be able to see how Miller has less bearing on the constitution RKBA than it does on the politics/social atmosphere of that time.

[library_max]

113. Goju, goju, goju.

You accused me of bringing up Bush v. Gore. When I pointed out that you were the one who brought it up, did I get an apology? An admission of error? Any slight indication that it mattered whether you told the truth or not?

So what should I conclude about continuing to discuss this with you? Are we having an honest and meaningful exchange of ideas? I've already pointed out that Miller is not an isolated case but only the first in a body of Second Amendment case law that consistently favors gun control and rules against the apellant gun owners. But you still pretend that we are talking about Miller in isolation.

Is there any point in continuing? Does it do any good to argue with a person who denies his own arguments and pretends not to have heard yours? I think not. Do feel free to get in the last word, however.

[goju]

115. Well, I wasnt going to bring up dishonesty but..

Since you want to throw the charge around, this is what I said:

"What was the point of highlighting how many times Miller has been reaffirmed compared to Bush v Gore than? If you knew it couldnt be used as precedent, why draw the comparison between the two?"

Notice that I was referring to the comparison you made that you clearly knew was unfair.

I agree, what is the point of continuing if you wont take responsibility for your disingenuous comments?

[library_max]

138. Please reread the title of your own post #66.

You asked why I brought it up, when you were the one who brought it up.

And there's nothing at all unfair about the comparison. You were using Bush v. Gore as an example of bad law, and I pointed out that while Bush v. Gore cannot be used as a precedent (because it is such ludicrously bad law), Miller has been so used in every Second Amendment case since.

Spin all you like. It doesn't change the facts.

[goju]

148. And do you judge a book by its cover too?

If you had just read the title and not the message, then I could understand your confusion. But clearly, the message that accompanied that titled referred "specifically" to you brining up the comparison in court citings/precedent between the two, NOT the original Gore Miller comparison. Why are you still trying to defend this ridiculous he said/she said rant you went on?

"And there's nothing at all unfair about the comparison. You were using Bush v. Gore as an example of bad law, and I pointed out that while Bush v. Gore cannot be used as a precedent (because it is such ludicrously bad law), Miller has been so used in every Second Amendment case since."

Wrong. There is everything unfair about the comparison. One case included the escape clause: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." The other case did not. Apples and oranges library, apples and oranges.

Allow me to conclude with your very words, Spin all you like. It doesn't change the facts.

[library_max]

149. So why did you bring up Bush v. Gore in the first place?

You admitted that you're the one who brought it up. But you're trying to pretend that I'm the one who first compared it to US v. Miller. So please explain what you intended (other than a comparison to US v. Miller) by bringing it up, in a subthread that was entirely about US v. Miller.

I don't enjoy wrangling about minutiae, but I am very tired of dishonest argument in this forum. It's not okay to keep running away from your own statements when they've been refuted. If you want to say, "Sorry, I was wrong," fine, but to pretend that I'm the one who said what you in fact said is not okay.

[goju]

161. You are convincing me...

I too am getting tired of dishonest argument. For you to not understand (or to pretend not to understand) what I meant is actually paying off for you. Im beginning to think you actually are confused.

At this point I have to ascertain from your comments that you see the SCOTUS as unerring hence incontrovertible . Since you are unable and unwilling to even question the wisdom or circumstance behind Miller, you obviously regard the SCOTUS as infallible and thus support their ruling in Bush v Gore.

You cant cherrypick. Either the SCOTUS is subject to scrutiny in ALL their decisions or none of their decisions. You decide what type of "progressive" YOU want to be.

[library_max]

182. Your argument makes no sense.

Bush v. Gore was an aberration. I've demonstrated this. You're trying to argue that the entire body of 2nd Amendment case law, from 1939 to present, is also an aberration. That's ridiculous. You set up a false choice and then demand that I choose. Gee, which party uses this tactic? Somebody help me remember . . .

[Bill ClintonII]

180. Yes, the idea of a pre-existing right makes sense, especially if...

we look at the whole of the wording of the Second Amendment, and the context of the times. The American Revolutionary War had just been fought and won against the greatest military power of the era, namely, the British Empire! The founding fathers were not concerned with re-creating a known and pre-existing concept in English Common Law. They were so concerned with preserving the new nation, and its freedom, that they had so valiently fought for. They therefore wrote, in Amendment II, "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." This, on the face of it, does not create a new right, but it does state that, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." One can argue all he/she wants about the placement of that comma, but it does not change the clear intent to ensure that a pre-existing 'right to keep and bear arms' is not changed, infringed watered-down, etc. For it to be possible to infringe upon something, it must, necessarily, already exist. To wit, the right to keep and bear arms already existed, and did not need the Second Amendment to establish it. Regards, Bill

[Bill ClintonII]

179. Yet, the right to keep and bear arms existed and still exists...

because it is what is known as a 'natural right' bestowed upon (given to) mankind by our creator (check the Declaration of Independence). Also, the Ninth Amendment allows for rights not enumerated, yet retained by the people. This is why it was still legal to purchase a machinegun in the United States up until 1934, without tax, registration, background check, etc. Of course, it is still legal to purchase machineguns (Yes, I do mean fully automatic machineguns, not the semi-automatic variants only.) in the United States, in those states where it is not restricted by law, and limited to non-felons, non-mental defectives, etc. It was simply accepted that no restriction nor encumberment of that right to keep and bear arms was recognized. Sadly, the right to keep and bear arms has been steadily erroded over the last few decades. However, it is yet possible to have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms reestablished as a new amendment, even though I believe that the militia refered to in the Second Amendment refered to, "all of the people, except some public officials." When the Miller decision was handed down (written) there no longer existed a national organized militia. Therefore, the Miller decision is just plain wrong. Regards, Bill

[library_max]

192. And yet another RKBAer earns his tombstone.

Is it every time a bell rings, or what?

[TheRovingGourmet]

22. The Constitution can be changed, but good luck changing

the Bill of Rights part of it; these rights are inalienable.

[Vladimir]

25. They are amendments though, and as such can technically be

re-amended, right? I wasn't aware that the 1st 10 amendments could not be re-amended or superseeded in any way.

[library_max]

29. It doesn't matter.

The Second Amendment doesn't mean what they think it means anyway. It does not confer or guarantee an individual RKBA.

[Vladimir]

33. I know but it would seem to me cleaner

to just rewrite the 2nd based on what society today wants, as opposed to relying on interpretation what the founding fathers wanted at a time of war. And before anyone shouts, yeah, I know its a pipe dream.

[wmenorr67]

40. If the 2nd

Amendment doesn't mean an individual right to Keep and Bear Arms then the 1st Amendment doesn't mean an individual right to free speech.

[Vladimir]

41. Care to explain your reasoning?

I don't see the 1st as being prefaced by:

'A well-regulated public debating forum being necessary...'

[library_max]

60. US courts have consistently ruled otherwise. /nt

[TheRovingGourmet]

37. It is my understanding that they could be changed, but this would

be neither easy or desirable. Once we started down this road, there would be no turning back.

[Vladimir]

42. Turning back from what?

the bar on constitutional change is already set very high in the US - if the political will was there, and the popular will was there, then I think it would be only sensible to update them (whichever one was found in need of updating)... I don't see that this would necessarily be a slippery slope, because I am not proposing that the bar for changing them be lowered (well, I would like that too, but its irrelevant to the point at hand).

[TheRovingGourmet]

43. Well, if the bar were lowered it would be a lot easier to get

those Patriot Acts set in stone. :) :)

For the rest of the Constitution, I would agree with you to varying extents. For the Bill of Rights I would not though as these are the most important. They have served us well these last two centuries and I am sure they will for many more.

[Vladimir]

44. I like to update my social rulebook is all

I think a periodic re-examining of the values under which a society is run is quite healthy, if only because one becomes much more aware of why something is a good idea when they are forced to vigorously defend it.

[TheRovingGourmet]

45. Same here. I think privacy rights are going to be where the

fight is at for years to come though. The scary thing here is that you can get both the political will and the will of the TV watching citizenry to make changes that may be popular at the moment, but bad in the long run.

[Vladimir]

47. That is true

but I don't know if having this same citizenry fetishising the Bill of Rights is that much better. Rather an informed dissenter than an unthinking supporter (except if we happen to be in an election year ;) )...

[TheRovingGourmet]

50. I'm not sure if many citizens even know what the Bill of Rights

say though. It is a lot of reading to learn about them as there are ten of them and all. :)

[hansberrym]

70. Or WHEN they were drafted and ratified!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=82129&mesg_id=82129

(Quoting Bench)
The Founding Fathers specifically noted this. Defending the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper 46, James Madison says that the people are to be armed so that they can form a state-regulated militia in order to defend the political powers enjoyed BY the state...
(end of non-sense)

[sharkman0330]

49. Hell no, I wouldn't turn them in

My Grandather's fought and died to protect my right to own firearms.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[library_max]

19. US v. Miller has always been cited in support of gun control restrictions

and never against them, at least not in a court decision that still stands. This is the key passage from US v. Miller:

"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

That's the established precedent. All the irrelevant details you cite are, well, irrelevant.

[Beren]

23. Irrelevant

All the irrelevant details you cite are, well, irrelevant.

It's amazing that you only find relevant those 'details' which support your agenda, and ignore the rest of the decision.

Miller clearly rules that the Second Amendment can only provide protection to weapons which are useful to a military or militia. Who is the militia? According to Miller:

These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Bearing arms supplied by themselves, NOT by the government, and of the kind /in common use at the time./

Had any defense been presented during the Miller case which demonstrated that a short-barrel shotgun had militia or military value, the court would have upheld the lower court's decision. Unfortunately, no defense was presented at all.

Tell me, would you be so happy to denounce the First Amendment, or the Fourth Amendment, on the basis of a Supreme Court ruling in which no defense was offered and only the federal government's side was heard?

[library_max]

27. Try to remember that Miller is not an isolated case.

All the Second Amendment case law since Miller has been based on the principle that the Second Amendment can be interpreted only in the context of the militia. And recent case law (Silveira, etc.) acknowledges the more modern reality that there is no armed citizen militia as defined in Miller sixty-five years ago. Let me refresh your memory with that paragraph from Miller again.

"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

Note that the militia as defined in Miller exists as a power granted to Congress - that it is to be called forth and used at their discretion - that they are to organize, arm, and discipline it - and that the state governments appoint the officers and provide for training "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." This means that a militia is NOT any gun owner who likes to think of himself as a member of the militia. The militia is government organized, government trained, government armed, and government controlled. It has appointed officers and official training. Without those qualities, there is no militia, at least not according to the standard in Miller.

So lemme ask you - who is your commanding officer in the militia? How often do you report? When was the last time your militia trained together?

[hansberrym]

69. Is the Supreme Court's definition of "such forces" an irrelevant detail?

(US V. Miller continued from where you left off)

{i]The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they <307 U.S. 174, 179> were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out ‘that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom’ and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.

[library_max]

101. I feel comfortable in saying that King Alfred's army is irrelevant, yes.

Did you miss the sentence "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline"? How about "The sentiment of the time"? Because of course by 1939 the United States did have a standing army. Both of those quotes underline the point that times and facts changed between the 1790's and 1939 - and they've changed again between 1939 and now.

Are you "enrolled for military discipline"? Where? Who's your commanding officer? When was the last time your unit trained together? Just having a gun doesn't make anyone a part of any militia. And if you don't believe me, there's Hickman and Silveira to look at.

[hansberrym]

123. Reinhardt in Silveira thought "such forces" so "irrelevant" that he ...

DELETED that phrase and put "state militia" in its place.

(From Silveira)
"The Miller Court also observed more
generally that “ith the obvious purpose to assure the continuation
and render possible the effectiveness of {state militias}
the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment
were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end
in view.” Id. Thus, in Miller the Supreme Court decided that
because a weapon was not suitable for use in the militia, its
possession was not protected by the Second Amendment. As
a result of its phrasing of its holding in the negative, however,
the Miller Court’s opinion stands only for the proposition that
the possession of certain weapons is not protected, and offers
little guidance as to what rights the Second Amendment does
protect."
(my emphasis in bold face, and "{" used to replace squared brackets that were used in original text due to HTML considerations)



Reinhardt commits an outright fraud. It is not acceptable to quote a source and then delete language without indicating that language has in fact been deleted. Nor is it acceptable to add commentary, as indicated by "State Militia" in brackets, when the original text contains the actual meaning of the words "such forces".

Note the other supposedly "irrelevant" word "possession" above?
Later in this same opinion that lying jackass Reinhardt denies that "keep" refers to possession. Why would the Supreme Court take the time to point out that the possession of SOME weapons is not protected by the 2nd amedment, IF the possession of NO WEAPONS are protected. Only a complete fool, or a lying jackass such as Reinhardt, could fail to see the obvious implication of the ruling.




Yes, I registered ("enrolled") for service, didn't you?

We have not been called up, so what? There was no requirement in US v. Miller that the defendant be in actual service, nor was that the case in Aymette, But then I suppose those facts are also "irrelevant"
in your opinion.



Nor does the 2nd amenmemnt say:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people WHEN IN ACTUAL SERVICE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That qualifier simply is not there.


However that qualifier is there in the 5th amendment. Certainly the founders knew how to write qualifiers and could have placed the same qualifier in the 2nd amendment if that was intended.


Amendment II
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.


Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[library_max]

139. That must be why Silveira was overturned on appeal. Oh, wait, it wasn't.

You can throw all the mud you want at Silveira and Judge Reinhardt. The decision stands as the governing precedent, there being no conflicting precedent on the issues.

[hansberrym]

151. Reinhardt dirtied himself with his own dishonesty, and I can certainly

understand why you do not want to defend his "arguments".


But why does a "Progressive" such as yourself tacitly give your approval of his lies by continuing to support the man?

[library_max]

183. Because he didn't lie and he wasn't dishonest,

no matter how desperately you want to believe the contrary.

[hansberrym]

196. Who can argue with such a reasoned response ?

Do you believe it is acceptable to omit words from a quote without indicating the omission?

Do you believe it is acceptable to insert commentary when the words in questions (such forces) are written of and described at length in the original text?


Do you believe it acceptable to feign ignorance of the defintition and use of words -especially when that same judge used that actual defintition himself ("keep" refers to "possession") in the very same opinion, but later he disavows any knowledge of the meaing of the words "keep" in the second amendmnt. The words "keep and bear arms" were used to mean "possession or use" of weapons by both the Supreme Court in Miller, and by judge Reinhardt early on in Silveira, however when formulating his theory that the amendment only refers to a collective right, he feigns ignorance of the clear meaning of this phrase, and his own usage earlier.




Judge Reinhardt goes way beyond spin, or simply reading evidence in the best light for his own side, he is a liar.

[library_max]

201. Yes, yes, and your third question is fallacious.

I repeat, I'll accept Judge Reinhardt's interpretations and authority to make such interpretations over yours any day. And, fortunately, he is the one whose interpretations have the force of law, not you.

[hansberrym]

206. All you do is repeat. Can you show how third question is fallacious? n/t

[library_max]

209. Just to begin with, you neither explain it nor support it.

You just assert that there is an inconsistency. Rather than demanding that I prove a negative, why don't you support your affirmative argument first?

[hansberrym]

225. It should be obvious that if "keep" means to "possess" arms

as the Supreme Court wrote, and as Reinhardt himself also wrote, then the amendment has an Individual Rights meaning.


But if "Keep" as in "keep and Bear arms" means to "maintain a state militia" then of course there is another meaning.

The judge would have us believe that the definition of the word "keep" assists neither side -that is a lie, or at least disingenuous, if one is polite.

Nor can he pretend to be uncertain how the word "keep" should be interpreted, since he earlier discussed the Miller ruling.

Instead he offers without any support the Collective Rights "interpretation" for "to keep and bear arms" as the supposed best interpretation based on a historical analysis of the second amendment.

Surely his analysis might have uncovered some evidence to support his leap of imagination (or deceit) to counter-balance the evidence supplied by the Miller court in its reading of history. But that is not the case, and sadly we are left only to take the judge at his word, and as you say repeatedly, his word is law.


But his word is not the truth.

[Wcross]

14. Fantasy of yours?

They can't even muster enough support to extend the "AWB", do you really think support would be there for a total ban?
Face it, gun control is about as dead as an issue can get these days. More and more states are issuing carry permits with no increase in gun homocides.
To answer the question, I would not turn in any firearm I own.

[LibLabUK]

16. Errr.

"Fantasy of yours?"

Hardly...

I was interested in what progressive liberal gun owners would do when faced with those measures.

I used to frequent a message board that was mainly moderate to extreme conservatives, and the gun owners there always said that they would probably agree with gun control measures if they were brought in as a constitutional ammendments.

[library_max]

24. I'm sure slaveholders were similarly smug in the 1840s and 1850s.

Progress progresses nevertheless.

[Wcross]

57. Pol Pot showed his people your idea of "progress"

I am quite ammused at your pathetic attempt to somehow equate gun owners to slave holders. I guess that must be in the first chapter of the gun grabbers guide to debate. If all else fails demonize your opponent.
I am sure Adolph Hitler and Pol Pot were as sure about the need for gun control as you are.

[library_max]

61. You're dead wrong about Hitler.

Under Hitler, guns were widely available to the ethnically German populace, with very few restrictions.

Do you have anything to back up your assertion about Pol Pot?

[Fescue4u]

63. Leave it to anti-freedom gun grabbers to defend Hitler and PolPot

"Under Hitler, guns were widely available to the ethnically German populace, with very few restrictions."

Yea..he only had a problem with those "swarthy" jews having guns.

[library_max]

103. NOT defending Hitler. That remark was as clever as it was honest.

Since I am in favor of gun control, how the hell can I be defending Hitler when I say that he didn't control guns?

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[library_max]

140. Hitler herded the Jews and "other groups he opposed" into

concentration camps and then had them killed by the millions. Are you going to sit there and pretend that gun control was any significant part of Hitler's crimes against humanity?

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wcross]

64. Try a google search Pol pot +Gun control

I do have history to back me up. Millions of dead cambodians is plenty of proof that gun control works.

[Vladimir]

78. Funny thing is, the US spent most of the 80s supporting Pol Pot

hilarious, don't you think?

[Fescue4u]

81. How much did Sarah Brady send?

[Vladimir]

83. I suspect very little

Reagan sent a lot though...

[FeebMaster]

84. Well he was a gun grabber after all. (nt)

[Vladimir]

86. LOL I knew you would say that! n/t

[FeebMaster]

87. Well he was.

One of the best too. They don't make them like Reagan anymore. The Republicans still think he was some pro-gun dynamo. I guess he was a hell of an actor.

[Vladimir]

88. Half the country still thinks he was good for the economy

never underestimate the predictability of stupidity... n/t

[FeebMaster]

89. That's because he was

a small government Republican. See? Best actor ever.

[Vladimir]

90. Nah. Best actor ever was Comical Ali n/t

[FeebMaster]

91. Not even close.

Did Comical Ali convince tens of millions of people he was pro-gun while he was banning the manufacture of an entire class of small arm? I mean, granted, those tens of millions of people were Republicans and gun grabbers so they probably weren't very hard to fool, but still, it's an impressive accomplishment.

[Vladimir]

92. LOL true n/t

[library_max]

104. Yeah, because U.S, Cambodia, same thing, right?

I mean, there are dozens of obvious similarities between the United States and Cambodia. There's . . . and then there's . . . and of course . . . well, there really aren't any, are there?

On the other hand, the three nations most like us in the world today, Canada, Australia, and UK, all have strict gun controls, all have murder rates a third of ours or less per capita, and none of them is a fascist state or any less free than us.

[hansberrym]

75. Especially since the slavers were so dead set against allowing

the freedmen to take advantage of their individual RKBA, that it took federal action to force the former confederate states to uphold the Second amendment!!!


From the second Freedmen's Bureau Bill:

"...in consequence of any State or Local law, ordinance, police or other regulation, custom or prejudice, any of the civil rights belonging to white persons, including the right to make or enforce contract, to sue,...and to have full and equal benefits of laws and procedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right of bearing arms , are refused or denied to negroes...it shall be the duty of the President of the United States... to extend protection..." (my emphasis)
(Equal Justice Under Law, Hymann and Wiecek, Harper&Row publishers, copyright 1982)




From the Congressional debates on the Fourteenth Amendment as quoted by Justice Hugo Black in his disent in Adamson v. People of Californina.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=332&invol=46&friend=oyez

'Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be-for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature-to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; <332 U.S. 46 , 106> the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments. (my emphasis)

[library_max]

105. But they sure held on to their own guns.

As do their philosophical descendants.

[hansberrym]

150. The Statists and Slavers have always denied the people their arms

but of course the Statists will hang onto their own, just as did the Slavers of old. It has always been so.

Reinhardt is the modern-day equivalent of the Slaveholder that seeks to disarm the masses so as to better control them.

It was the Progressives that argued for the individual RKBA and gave us the Post Civil War amendments, and it was the Slavers who argued against those amendments. Now the Statists argue tha the second amendment is not about individual rights and try to deny that the it was incorporated by the 14th amendment, though the history of that amendment's drafting and passage is well known.

[library_max]

184. Calling names is a piss-poor argument. /nt

[hansberrym]

199. You brought up the slaveholders, or did you forget that?

Oh, but then you were trying to smear someone else so it was OK.
Your attempt at guilt by association was uncalled for.

On the other hand, pointing out that you hero Reinhardt actually sides with the slaveholders in denying the 2nd and 14th Amendments is just telling it like it is.


As for calling Reinhardt a liar, I have provided examples of his lies, so it is not mere "name calling".



If you can provide any reason why Reinhardt would write that he did not know the meaning of a word "keep" on one page of an opinion, when he had actually already discussed the 2nd amendment using "keep" to mean "possession" and had already written that the Supreme Court had done the same, I would like to hear it.

[library_max]

202. Oh, I see. You think you're right, so that proves it.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[UpsideDownFlag]

174. the hitler reference is bullshit

his famous 'quote' has been debunked.

[FeebMaster]

175. Hitler wasn't quoted in this thread. (nt)

[Pert_UK]

20. I've handed in an airpistol, flicknife and survival knife....

My mates bought me a replica Colt .45 airpistol for my birthday a few years ago. I never really used it, so took it into my local police station for them to dispose of, rather than leave it lying around or sell it on to someone who might misuse it.

Same goes for those knives - the flicknife came back from France with me on a school trip years ago, but given that they're illegal in the UK I handed that in too.

Did the same with the "Rambo" survival knife that I used to have - no point in keeping a whacking great blade like that, I never used it, I believe it contravened new maximum-length laws for knives, so it seemed sensible to hand it over to the cops.

I don't see the point of letting dangerous stuff just lie around the house if you're never going to use it.

I've still got a couple of lock-knives & a penknife + leatherman etc.

P.

[Vladimir]

21. Boy you really hate your freedom, don't you? n/t

[Pert_UK]

28. I'm assuming that was sarcasm....

based on your other posts.

If not, please inform.

[Vladimir]

30. Of course it was mate n/t

[Pert_UK]

31. ...and I'm assuming that wasn't....

:-)

P.

[TheRovingGourmet]

38. I think you are teasing us. :)

[Pert_UK]

48. Nope....I have actually handed these things in.

I never, ever used them, some of them were illegal, and it seemed like the best thing to do was to dispose of them safely.

In the future I hope to get a shotgun for clay pigeon shooting, but in the meantime I don't need random bits of useless dangerous stuff lying around, and as they were only of minimal value I didn't want to sell them to somebody who might misuse them.

P.

[Fescue4u]

68. Did you get any compensation?

I would suppose not.

Such a foreign concept to me..turning over ones property to the state because it makes someone feel better.

Especially the knife. Id comment more, but I just have a hard time relating to such a mindset..

[Pert_UK]

94. No, for a number of reasons.........

1 - the items were, effectively, valueless. The survival knife was a cheap one that I'd had for 10 years and was rusty. The flicknife was also a cheap one (plus see 2 below). I could have maybe got £10 for the air pistol if I'd sold it, but it wasn't worth the hassle or the worry that it might have been bought by someone who didn't treat it safely.

2 - the air pistol wasn't illegal, therefore the government wouldn't compensate me for it. I'd decided to throw it away, but thought that turning it in to the police was the safest way to dispose of it as they regularly destroy seized weapons. The flicknife itself was illegal when I bought it. It's almost a rite of passage in the UK (or was 15 years ago) to smuggle a flicknife back from a school trip to France. Therefore I couldn't sell it, plus the government wouldn't compensate me for something that had been illegal at the time of import.

I wasn't turning this property over to the State to make me feel better. This was stuff that I didn't want or need with no inherent value. If it had been safe to send it to the local dump I would have done, but I thought that the safest way to dispose of it was via the police.

I can't believe I'm being attacked for safely disposing of unwanted weapons - I guess that's alien to you is it?

[Fescue4u]

131. Oh I was attacking.

Really I wasnt.

Im just saying that I don't understand the mindset.

I've got any number of dangerous things lying around my house. From lawn mower blades, to paint thinner, weed killer etc. Not to mention a garage full of tools that in theory could be used to build all kinds of nefarious things. And yes, I have several assault rifles, pistols and knives too.

It just that I don't that have urge that would make me want to take my big kitchen knives, nor any of my other scary things to the local police.

All I can say is that I find it an alien concept that I have little frame of reference for.

But truly, if it makes one sleep better, then whom am I to argue?

[Fescue4u]

156. should have read "wasnt attacking"

obviously.

[library_max]

193. Why? You were right the first time.

What was post 68 if not an attack?

[Jack_DeLeon]

62. Personally...

I dont think knifes, airpistols, or guns are dangerous if they are just lying around the house.

I have quite a knife and sword collection and when they are just sitting there nothing dangerous happens.

I cut my finger once when I was "playing" with one of my knifes but nothing happens when they are just laying there.

[Pert_UK]

93. Well it depends...

I think you're being deliberately obtuse.

This was stuff that I had no use for, no inclination to keep, and which would have been dangerous if it had been found by any of my younger relatives visiting the house.

You see, if you've got knives or guns in the house there is a far higher chance that somebody will have an accident with them than if you don't have any in the house.

Kids will root around the house and play with stuff they find, so leaving unwanted, valueless weapons around the house would be just to pointlessly increase the risk to them.

Yes, of course there are other dangerous things in my house (chemicals, kitchen knives, girlfriend) but I need these things on a regular basis and take an active role in keeping them out of harms way. Removing my (illegal and pointless) flicknife from the house just meant I had one less thing to worry about. Same for the air-pistol.

[Endangered Specie]

39. Would you like some tin foil to go with that order?

:eyes:

[FeebMaster]

46. I'd turn in everything I bought from

a federal firearms licensee or, at least in my state, pretty much everything bought from a private owner. Basically anything traceable. But since I've never purchased a gun through those avenues and don't plan on it I wouldn't have anything to turn in. Also, since I'm not actually a gun owner I guess I don't have much to worry about.


I think most of the 32 people who said no in this poll are all talk.

[FatSlob]

51. I would not.

The Constitution does not grant rights, it merely recognizes inalienable rights that have existed for all time.

[mosin]

52. No

But I don't expect it to happen.

However, under any circumstances leading to the outright repeal of any of the Bill of Rights (expression, religion, arms, property, jury trials, etc.) armed revolution would probably be justified.

[Fescue4u]

53. Turn What in?

"Id be happy to comply, but I no longer own any firearms."

"Sure I would be happy to discuss it further. Here is the name/number of my attorney. Please call him to make an appointment so that we can all discuss it together..Have a good day!"

[Wcross]

65. Yeah, I lost my firearms duck hunting last fall.....

Fell right out of the boat! Darn it all.......

[slackmaster]

71. If the government ever did call for general confiscation,

There would be a lot of similar "boating accidents" across the country.

It's not going to happen.

[CarinKaryn]

72. Thanks for the admission that you'd lie and violate the law...

...hidden behind your winks and "boating accidents," but we all know what you mean.

Either you honestly think you are "progressives" or you know you aren't and are just here to disrupt.
Either case makes me feel sick that you are posting here.

[hansberrym]

73. Is a progressive some one who marches in lockstep with legal authority no

matter what the case ?

[library_max]

106. No, but gun control is progressive.

It saves lives and civilizes society. Again, note that the politicians, activists, and organizations in favor of gun control are overwhelmingly Democratic and progressive, while those on the other side are overwhelmingly (though not without exception) not.

[mosin]

112. In my opinion...

Gun control is authoritarian and is distinctly non-progressive.

Gun control costs lives and increases violence in society.

I find it almost incomprehensible that many who most strongly argue for tolerance, inclusion, diversity, and individual liberty have such a blind spot when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms for defense and security.

A healthy life requires food, water, shelter, medical care, education, companionship, and security. If you support five and deny the sixth, you are not truly progressive--in my opinion.

[library_max]

114. Millions of people are quite secure without guns.

A gun in the household is much more likely to be used against someone who lives there than to be used successfully in thwarting an attack. That's not security, that's unnecessary risk.

And again, how do you explain Canada, Australia, and the UK, three free countries with strict gun controls and a murder rate per capita that is a small fraction of ours?

[TheRovingGourmet]

119. Just a cursory study of these countries would show that the

availability of guns is not the issue. Rising gun control in these countries will show a government that is not finding a way of dealing with a growing problem and is taking the easy way out.

[library_max]

141. Their murder rate is a third of ours or less, per capita.

Sounds good to me. I don't particularly like murder.

[TheRovingGourmet]

163. And why is their murder rate so low. That is the question we

should be asking.

[slackmaster]

164. Australia's murder rate has been consistently about 1/4 of the US rate

Since before either country had any real gun control.

Homicide rates for the period 1915 to 2000 have fluctuated, often substantially from one year to the next, but overall within a relatively small range, i.e. between extreme lows and highs of 0.8 and 2.4 homicides per 100,000 persons per annum (see graph below). Despite the annual fluctuations and some decades of relative stability, there were some longer periods over which the rates tended to rise and fall. Broadly described, these include a decline in the rates after the 1920s, down to lows recorded during the 1940s - around the time of World War II. After that, there was a long term upward trend which reached a peak of 2.4 homicides per 100,000 persons in 1988. After falling back to 1.8 homicides per 100,000 persons in 1992 the annual rates though the 1990s have fallen slightly further. In 2000 there were 313 homicides recorded in the cause of death statistics: 1.6 homicides per 100,000 persons. Similar data compiled from police records since 1993 indicate little change through the 1990s.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/24d4f763d69b9c0eca256bdc00122407!OpenDocument

And it's not at all clear that gun control in the US has had any effect on long-term homicide rates. Here's some data that goes back to 1950:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm

Until 1968 anyone could buy a gun by mail order with no questions asked.

[library_max]

186. Australian homicides peaked in 1988, went down after that.

Major gun controls were instituted in 1987 after gun massacres in Victoria and New South Wales. Here's the link:

http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=6

[TheRovingGourmet]

222. I think information from a source that is a little more on the

unbiased side would be beneficial.

[library_max]

185. Yes, what's the difference, other than their gun control laws? /nt

[TheRovingGourmet]

223. There is plenty of good information online about Australia.

[mosin]

136. Security

A gun in the household is much more likely to be used against someone who lives there than to be used successfully in thwarting an attack. That's not security, that's unnecessary risk.

Citing the fraudulent Kellermann "study" over and over does not make it valid. Do you have another source?

Even within the U.S. homicide rates are poorly (or inversely) correlated with firearms ownership rates. The consistently higher homicide rates in the U.S. are the result of other cultural factors and, at the present time, our obsession with the "War on Drugs."

[library_max]

142. What cultural factors?

Name any country in the world that is more like the US than Canada, Australia, or the UK.

[goju]

165. "More like" the US might be correct, "comparable" is not

You find evidence of the street gangs and drug war in those countries that we have here, and you might actually convince me. I have not been able to find any substantial evidence that those countries are even concerned about those problems. Until then, you are simply cherrypicking one factor (gun control) and attributing it to their historically lower murder rates.

[LibLabUK]

166. Hmm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2662257.stm

[goju]

169. Wow, a news story!

Please tell me that was meant to be a joke?

ONE article from a news source about ONE country and you think that is even noteworthy?? Did you think by posting that article you were HELPING your argument, or hurting it? Im fairly sure I could find a similar story about Iceland for hell sakes. And it wasnt even government figures as have been presented here on US drug/gang violence multiple times!

Oh yeah, Im quite sure the drug/gang issues across the pond are comparable to the US. In light of the damning story, Im convinced! :eyes:

[library_max]

187. So what you're saying

is that your inability to find facts that support your argument proves that your argument is correct? You are arguing that the US greatly differs from Canada, Australia, and the UK in the matter of gangs, and the fact that you can't find any information to back up your claim proves that it's true?

[goju]

226. Yes

The absence of evidence that their respective justice departments are at all concerned about those issues leads me to suspect that they are not really issues at all, for them. Doesnt mean my assertions are true, but it certainly is interesting that there is very very little, if any information on drug trade/gangs in those countries.

I assume you agree that drugs/gangs DO play a role in homicides? If not, maybe we should establish that first. If so, maybe you can find information from those countries pointing to the number of homicides attributed to gangs/drug trade. Ive searched high and low to no avail.

[TheRovingGourmet]

116. I would agree that most gun control advocates would fall into

the Democratic/Progressive camp but feel that they are misguided in this area. I usually don't know whether to feel sad, insulted, or amused by some of what our gun control proponents say. If we, as a society, would put as much effort into ensuring that each child had the best chance of growing up to be a decent, responsible person as we do into gun control, we would not have to worry about any weapon they cared to have. That Homeland Security lady, a Democrat if I remember correctly, was just plain scary because she came across to me as not being very realistic about a serious issue.

[slackmaster]

118. Great advertising slogans but no facts to back them up

It saves lives and civilizes society.

You should get that one trademarked. It's pure bullshit but it sounds great, just like a claim that one deodorant works better than all the others.

Again, note that the politicians, activists, and organizations in favor of gun control are overwhelmingly Democratic and progressive, while those on the other side are overwhelmingly (though not without exception) not.

"Progressive" does not mean progressively reducing the choices available to the people. In my experience here in California most pro-RKBA people are at their core libertarian, which is not mutually exclusive with progressive ideals.

[LibLabUK]

120. Hmmm..

"their core libertarian, which is not mutually exclusive with progressive ideals."

Libertarian worship of the free-market is most definately at odds with progressive ideals. Their adoration of social Darwinism is sickening. Even their ideas of rights, which is based solely around property rights, allow for some truly horrific outcomes (e.g. company towns, indentured workers and contractual slavery).


Anyone who aligns themselves with libertarians is most definately not a liberal.

[slackmaster]

121. I said libertarian not Libertarian

The Libertarians are indeed social Darwinists. They're Republicans who smoke weed.

A truly progressive approach to reducing violent crime would address the root causes of the problem: Social injustice, inequality, education, joblessness, hopelessness, sickness, addiction, prejudice, etc.

There is no inconsistency between policies that elevate all people and those that preserve individual choice and liberty.

[LibLabUK]

122. I'm aware that there's supposed to be a distinction..

But every libertarian I've come across, whether or not they've voted LP, has been a devotee of the laissez-faire economy, and as such not too interested in righting social injustice.

[slackmaster]

125. I consider myself libertarian on personal freedom

Progressive on social justice, education, environment, etc.; and fiscally conservative.

I'm not against spending public money and making laws to improve the standard of living, but I insist that it be done efficiently and with minimal impact on liberty.

[hansberrym]

160. Gun control to a point is progressive, but lying to steal away the

individual rights of the people is certainly NOT progressive.


In Silveira, Reinhardt was not merely upholding gun control. He easily could have upheld an indivdual RKBA AND upheld the particular law if he thought the RKBA did not apply to the facts/weapons in question. He went much further and told many lies in order to deny historical facts. That is hardly progressive.

If the choice were gun control yes or no, I would say yes.

If it is Collective rights vs. Individual right, I would say the
overwhelming evidence is on the side of Individual Right, and simply because judges/courts choose to lie, that does not make it so.

Those who argue for Collective Rights are the extremists in this case.
They are willing to falsify history in order to get their way.

[library_max]

188. Your saying so doesn't make it so. /nt

[goju]

74. Do you NOT believe in..

civil disobedience as a means to reform? If you dont, I would have a hard time putting you in the progressive category.

I understand if you dont believe in the individual RKBA but at least recognize that many of us do. What would YOU do if one of your rights was stripped from you? Willingly concede? Lay down and take it?

To suggest that anyone isnt "progressive" enough for you is NOT what I would call being progressive on your part. If we arent a big tent party, we are nothing.

[Wcross]

76. At least I am honest about it.

For the majority of "gun control advocates" I could not say the same. Being progressive doesn't require one to advocate confiscation of property without justification. Just how will a law to prohibit firearms effect a person willing to commit homocide?

[Jack_DeLeon]

77. damn those civil rights activists...

for violating the laws. What a bunch of non-progressive distruptors they were. :eyes:

[Vladimir]

79. As I posted somewhere else...

The difference is twofold:

1) Owning a gun is a choice, being black is not

2) Gun ownership is not a neutral choice, like for example the right to practice religion (or indeed the smoking of marijuana), where the only person being affected is you. Your owning a gun, as self defence advocates keep telling us, affects society quite considerably. Which is why society is perfectly within its rights to curtail them...

[Jack_DeLeon]

80. rights...

1. Are you implying that just because people have the choice to exercise a right or not that its less of a right?

Is the freedom of speech any less of a right because people have the choice of not exercising it?

Gun ownership is a right whether you chose to exercise it or not.

2. Society can curtail this particular right when it amends the consitution.

[Vladimir]

85. Indeed I am

The primary concern is: does a right affect someone else? If that is not the case, then it seems to me nonsensical to restrict this right under any circumstances (incidentally there are very few such cases - skin colour, sexual orientation, gender for example - and they are all also not choices). If on the other hand it does affect other people, then you have to decide what this effect on other people will be and if it is imortant enough to curtail the right because of it.

It does seem to me that people should not be punished for things they can do nothing about (with exceptions, as always). For example, loud profanity in a restaurant might well get you ejected from there, but if someone happens to have Tourette's syndrome and can do nothing about it I think it would be wrong to penalise them.

Point two is historically inaccurate - society has been curtailing this right left right and centre for years now.

[library_max]

107. US courts have consistently ruled

that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual RKBA outside the context of an armed citizen militia. You are describing an imaginary right, not a Constitutional right.

[Fescue4u]

82. owning a gun is a civil right

In addition to being a choice.

Just like free speech and rest of it.

[library_max]

108. US courts have consistently ruled

that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual RKBA outside of the context of an armed citizen militia. You are describing an imaginary right, not a Constitutional right.

[thomas82]

135. The courts are wrong

And if you are going to try and covince me that they are always right just look up the OJ trial.
Tom

[library_max]

143. Everyone is out of step but me. /nt

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fescue4u]

154. No you have people who walk in lock step with you.

I don't know how they march though.

[library_max]

194. That's funny. Nobody marches in formation like you NRA types.

You just can't seem to get in step with American law and progressive values.

[mosin]

98. Choices

The difference is twofold:

1) Owning a gun is a choice, being black is not

2) Gun ownership is not a neutral choice, like for example the right to practice religion (or indeed the smoking of marijuana), where the only person being affected is you. Your owning a gun, as self defence advocates keep telling us, affects society quite considerably. Which is why society is perfectly within its rights to curtail them...

Speech is a choice. Free association is a choice. Voting is a choice. Religion is a choice. Bearing arms is a choice. All are choices. All are choices we each individually have a right to make.

And firearm ownership is every bit as much of a "neutral choice" as the others. To paraphrase a cliche, my firearms have hurt fewer people than my toaster. (I have a dangerous German toaster.)

Even my carrying a firearm every day has no impact on others. Unless someone tries to inflict on me death or seriously bodily injury, no one will even know it is there.

Bad conduct with firearms can have an impact on others. Focus your laws on that, and you will have no complaints from me.

[library_max]

109. US courts have consistently ruled

that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual RKBA outside the context of an armed citizen militia. You are talking about an imaginary right, not a Constitutional right.

[TheRovingGourmet]

117. I would have to say that one's practice of religion certainly does

effect everyone else, often in disastrous ways. Google 911 for examples.

And one's use of illegal drugs and abuse of legal ones does affect everyone else also. In the legal arena, we see accidents, job loss or absenteeism, health issues, and so forth. In the illegal arena, we also see gangs, criminals, and other seedy types. So yes, you buying pot does affect me.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mosin]

100. He didn't say that...

though I did and others have.

I'll say it again.

I would not obey a law that forbad me to speak freely.
I would not obey a law that forbad me to practicing my religion--if I had one.
I would not obey a law that forbad me to keep and bear arms for my defense and security.

Illegitimate laws have no moral authority. Civil disobedience toward a moral end is a perfectly moral act--though there may be practical legal consequences.

[thomas82]

134. Last I heard

Only just laws should be obeyed. Their will be people who will stand up to unjust laws and then their will be sheep. Care for some grass?
Tom

[library_max]

145. Yes, that's how democracy works.

We elect representatives who write the laws according to the will of the people as a whole, and then everyone does what he or she damn well pleases. Oh, wait, that's not democracy, it's anarchy.

[Columbia]

167. Actually when the rights of others are trampled

By either the minority or the majority, that's called authoritarianism - which is diametrically opposed to progressivism and liberty.

Would you support an amendment outlawing gay marriage?

[library_max]

189. But you're talking about a made-up right.

And nobody asked you if you would support such a law. The question was, would you obey it?

[hansberrym]

200. Let's be clear, when was this right "made-up" in your opinion? n/t

[library_max]

203. Your side continues to make it up even as I write this post. /nt

[hansberrym]

207. In other words, ambiguity favors your argument. You will not clarify

your statement because you know it is crap, and the more you explain yourself, the more obvious it will be that you can not defend your claim.


But give it a shot -Just when was the individual RKBA made-up in your opinion?

[library_max]

210. "Made-up" and "imaginary" are synonymous.

I am using the term in the adjectival sense, not the active verb sense.

Therefore, your question amounts to "Just when was the individual RKBA imaginary in your opinion?" And the answer is, it was always imaginary. But "when" is not a particularly relevant question for things that do not actually exist.

[hansberrym]

213. So when was it first "Imagined" in you opinion?

Why the constant dodging? As an English major you had to know how I used the word.

[library_max]

214. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Can God make a rock so big that He couldn't lift it?

What's the point in abstract questions about imaginary topics?

[hansberrym]

215. I keep asking because I know that you will keep dodging, this will

demostrate the utter weakness of your argument, as it has already done quite nicely.


You know full well that the historic record supports the individual RKBA, that is why you do not say when it was "made-up" or when it was "imagined" because you know full well (as per Jody's posts) that the right was written about from the start of the country with the adoption of the various states' constitutions. The individual RKBA pre-dates the Second Amendment so it is extremely doubtful that similar language would have been used to define a purely collective right.






From Silveira v. Lockyer:
The Pennsylvania minority, so frequently cited by the proponents of the individual rights view, also used language markedly different from that of the Second Amendment. Its proposal for a federal constitutional amendment, which was rejected in favor of the Second Amendment, would have unambiguously established a personal right to possess arms for personal purposes: (my emphasis)

“No law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals . . . .” The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of the State of Pennsylvania to Their Constituents, at 623- 24 (quoted in Finkelman, supra, at 208).
(end quote)


Judge Reinhardt selectively quotes from the Pennsylvania Minority but he slips up and allows a little too much truth into his argument. The Judge admits that the provision that he quotes from is “unambiguously” directed to an individual right. A reading of the actual proposed amendments from the PA Minority is telling. Note that there were 14 proposed amendments in all, below are the 2 which are mentioned in the Silveira opinion.


7) That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game, and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers. (my emphasis)


11) That the power of organizing, arming and disciplining the militia (the manner of disciplining the militia to be prescribed by Congress) remain with the individual states, and that Congress shall not have authority to call or march any of the militia out of their own state, without the consent of such state, and for such length of time only as such state shall agree.

That the sovereignty, freedom and independency of the several states shall be retained, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this constitution expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled. (excerpted from The Anti-Federalist and the Constitutional Convention Debates; Ralph Ketcham, Mentor, copyright 1986)



How does Judge Reinhardt explain the words “the people have a right to bear arms” in an amendment that unambiguously established an individual right? He doesn’t – Judge Reinhardt simply edits those words out of the original text.


Furthermore, Judge Reinhardt’s argument that the PA Minority proposal is “markedly different” from the Second Amendment is laughable when viewed in the full text. The actual right expressed in the second amendment is nearly identical to the right expressed in the second amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms (right as stated in the Second Amendment)

The people have a right to bear arms (right as stated in the Address of the PA minority )

Note that the right expressed in the Second Amendment is broader since there are no restrictive clauses following the statement of the right such as in the proposal of the PA minority.
Judge Reinhardt would have us believe that the lack of restrictive clauses following the RKBA in the Second Amendment actually limits the RKBA in the Second amendment. That is assbackwards logic at best.

[library_max]

216. What you call "the historic record" has no authority in law.

You can ask your question until doomsday for all I care. It doesn't change the fact that neither your opinions nor mine, neither your interpretations nor mine, neither your understanding of "the historic record" nor mine, has any bearing on the actual application of the Second Amendment in US law. Nothing has any bearing on that except the body of case law surrounding it. And that body of case law has been consistent - in every case that has not been overturned, the Second Amendment has been found not to apply to the appellant's case. In every case, the gun control measure was upheld and the appellant's RKBA was denied.

[hansberrym]

217. You dodged because you know the historical record does not support

you claim that the individual RKBA is an imaginary right.


You are more clever than most anti-RKBA-activists, since they usually say the individual RKBA was created in the 1970's or other such easy to disprove nonsense. You are careful to keep your statements vague so as to prevent any real discussion of what you meant.

[library_max]

218. The only question is the question of law.

And the question of law is answered by the body of US case law on the subject. I'm "clever" enough not to get dragged into arguments about irrelevant theoretical issues (at least, not too often). It's not a question of vague statements, it's a question of what matters. This "when" business doesn't matter. It doesn't change the interpretation of the law.

[hansberrym]

224. Dragged into arguments that you begin by asserting that the

individual RKBA is a made-up right? You know full well it has been written of since the start of the country.

You are engaging in disinformation. One does not need to resort to red herrings if ones argument is strong.


Facts don't matter you say, only the law -then I suppose you believe
two plus two would equal five if a judge says so.

[jody]

102. RKBA is an inalienable civil right

The right to defend self and state is an inalienable right and individual firearms are the most effective and efficient method of exercising that civil right. The federal government clearly can use the law enforcement and military power granted to it by "We the People" to attempt to disarm the People but that does not make it morally correct.

[library_max]

111. Saying it's so doesn't make it so.

There's an old story in which Abraham Lincoln asked a colleague how many legs a sheep has, if you call a tail a leg. Receiving the answer, "Five," Lincoln replied, "No, just four, because calling a tail a leg don't make it one."

[jody]

124. Please consider the following

The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (RKBA), shall not be infringed."

But before there was a Second Amendment, there was a Constitution, and before the Constitution, there were state constitutions, and before state constitutions, there were "unalienable rights".

Pennsylvania (1776) and Vermont (1777) declared their citizen's had the unalienable "right to defend life, liberty, and property" and also "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state".

"I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property,"
"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;" (Pa Constitution, 28 Sept. 1776)

After Pennsylvania ratified the Second Amendment in March 1790 it adopted, barely six months later, a revised constitution on September 2, 1790 that said, "That the right of the citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." (Article IX section XXI)

When Pennsylvania revised its constitution in 1790, it retained the simple statement regarding an individual’s unalienable right to use arms for defense of self and state and it did so with contemporaneous knowledge of the meaning of the Second Amendment. Pennsylvania’s action occurred a few months after it ratified the Bill of Rights setting up a simple either/or condition – EITHER Pennsylvania understood its statement “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State” to be included in the Second Amendment OR Pennsylvania intended its statement to be an un-enumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment which clearly states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Today 28 states recognize an individual`s "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" (RKBA) for defense of self and state: AL, AR, CO, CT, DE, FL, IN, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, ND, OK, OR, PA, SD, TX, UT, VT, WA, WV, WI, WY

Five states recognize an individual's RKBA for the "common defense": AR, KS, MA, OH, TN.

Eleven states say RKBA shall not be infringed": AK, GA, HI, ID, IL, LA, ME, NC, RI, SC, VA.

Six states have no RKBA provision: CA, IA, MD, MN, NJ, NY.

It is interesting that CA, IA, and NJ both acknowledge that a citizen has the inalienable right to defend self and property. State Constitutions

Moreover, bearing firearms is defined as a "civil right" in federal law.

The relevant law says unless "restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms."

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > Sec. 921. --Definitions

QUOTE
(a) As used in this chapter -

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
….. (20) The term ''crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year'' does not include -
…..….. (A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or
…..….. (B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.
….. What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

AND

(33)
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
….. (B)
….. ….. (i) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter, unless -
….. ….. ….. (I) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in the case; and
….. ….. ….. (II) in the case of a prosecution for an offense described in this paragraph for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either
….. ….. ….. ….. (aa) the case was tried by a jury, or
….. ….. ….. ….. (bb) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise.
….. ….. (ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
UNQUOTE

[hansberrym]

126. Thats just "irrelevant verbiage" . Don't you know

that the courts interpret to constitution and it doesn't matter what you think, or what you can demonstate by logical arguments?

[jody]

128. Your comment is your opinion

:)

[hansberrym]

153. Quess I shoulda used a sarcasm icon, actually I was just anticipating

and poking fun at the predictable responses from the gun grabbers.

[jody]

162. I understand, have a nice day.

:-)

[mosin]

137. Ohio

Five states recognize an individual's RKBA for the "common defense": AR, KS, MA, OH, TN

That is not quite accurate for Ohio. The Ohio Constitution, Article 1, Section 4 provides as follows: "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."

According to the Ohio Supreme Court, the right to bear arms is a fundamental individual right. There is no mention of the "common defense."

[jody]

159. I understand. I used the 1802 constitution and Ohio changed it in 1851

Ohio: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 4 (enacted 1851).

1802: "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 shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20.

Thanks for the clarification based on the Ohio Supreme Court ruling.

[library_max]

144. Please cite a court case

which was decided on the basis of any of this stuff you are quoting. Generally speaking, state constitutions carry very little weight in court. Many states have lots of laws that contradict their state constitutions.

[jody]

157. It's difficult to prove a negative, so why don't you cite a court case

that refutes anything I stated.

[library_max]

191. I don't have to.

The absence of such cases proves my point. You're actually asking me to prove a negative - that state constitutions don't have a significant impact on US law (note the word "don't"). If you want to argue that they do, support your argument.

[hansberrym]

158. Why, US v. Miller considered the states RKBA clauses...

From US v. Miller:
Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.
(end quote)


Note that nearly all of the states have an individual RKBA, but almost none would say that the possession of ALL types of weapons are
protected. Some even say right in their constitutions that carrying concealed weapons is not protected, and most would say that certain weapons are not protected because they are of the types used by criminals.

It is yet another absurd conclusion of the Collective Rights Advocates that the second amendment to the US COnstitution means something completely different than the RKBA provisions of the individual states as shown earlier by Jody.

The Supreme Court could not have found based on a Collective Rights interpretation, rather than on the type of weapon in question, and said "But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below" becasue it is obvious that nearly all of the states did and still do have an individual RKBA.

[library_max]

190. Once again, state constitutions have little impact on the law.

US v. Miller also cited King Alfred's army. That doesn't make King Alfred's army an essential precedent in American law.

[hansberrym]

197. Once again, we were talking about precedents that took into

account..the various states' RKBA provisions.


One such precedent is US v. Miller.


Why do the Collective Rights advocates feign ignorance of that fact
when they "interpret" US v. Miller?





Wait, I know the answer. For the same reason they feign ignorance of the meaning of words such as "militia", "bear arms", and "Keep", and the meaning of the "preamble". And for the same reason that they delete key parts of citations such as when Judge Reinhardt cites John Adams' Defense of the COnstitution, or when he cites the Address of the Pennsylvaia Minority.


If they told, or even merely acknowledged the truth, thier argument would collapse. Feigned ignorance and distortion is all they have.

[library_max]

204. Verbiage in a state constitution is not a precent.

A court decision that has not been overturned, such as Silveira, is a precedent. Try to keep the terms straight.

[hansberrym]

208. The Miller decision is precedent. Got it so far? The Supreme Court...

in Miller relied on the various states' RKBA provisions when interpreting the Second Amendment as shown by my earlier post.
Still there?

The various states' RKBA are individual rights as shown earlier by Jody. Still there?


That fact ought to be taken into account when "interpreting" Miller, but then your side continues to feign ignorance that the supreme made thier decision based "on any of that stuff" as you so eloquently said.



It is right there in the opinion, we KNOW the MIller COurt considered the state RKBA provisions, because they told us so.

[library_max]

211. Miller considered a lot of things, including King Alfred's army.

That doesn't make King Alfred's army a precent in American law.

You can say that the Miller decision "relied" on the various states' RKBA provisions, but it isn't so. The Miller decision contains discussions of many historical matters, including King Alfred's army.

The mere fact that something is mentioned in a court decision does not mean that the court decision is "based on" that item. Again, King Alfred's army is the obvious example.

[jody]

212. The following annotations discuss SCOTUS' limited history

dealing with recognizing inalienable rights retained by the people and protected by the Ninth Amendment.

As I have shown elsewhere, the right to defend self and state was recognized as an inalienable right by Pennsylvania and Vermont before they became states. It is impossible for the sovereign citizens of those states and others to have surrendered their inalienable rights when they ratified the Constitution.

Given an unambigous written document like a state's constitution recognizing an inalienable right that predated a state's ratification of the Constitution, SCOTUS has a problem, one that it has not addressed because debate focuses on the Second Amendment with its controversial militia topic.

“Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Annotations
QUOTE
Rights Retained by the People
Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those. 1 Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' 2 It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement. 3 Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.

The Ninth Amendment had been mentioned infrequently in decisions of the Supreme Court 4 until it became the subject of some exegesis by several of the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut. 5 There a statute prohibiting use of contraceptives was voided as an infringement of the right of marital privacy. Justice Douglas, writing the opinion of the Court, asserted that the ''specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.'' 6 Thus, while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. The Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment, apparently to support the thought that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference. Justice Goldberg, concurring, devoted several pages to the Amendment.

''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.'' 7 While, therefore, neither opinion sought to make of the Ninth Amendment a substantive source of constitutional guarantees, both did read it as indicating a function of the courts to interpose a veto with regard to legislative and executive efforts to abridge other fundamental rights. In this case, both opinions seemed to concur that the fundamental right claimed and upheld was derivative of several express rights and in this case, really, the Ninth Amendment added almost nothing to the argument. But if there is a claim of a fundamental right which cannot reasonably be derived from one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, even with the Ninth Amendment, how is the Court to determine, first, that it is fundamental, and second, that it is protected from abridgment? 8
UNQUOTE

[hansberrym]

219. The Supreme Court in Miller did look at the various state constitutions

Despite how you much want to deny that fact. They did rely on them for guidance as to "the scope of the right guaranteed".

From US v. Miller:
Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.
(end quote)


It is yet another absurd conclusion of the Collective Rights Advocates that the second amendment to the US Constitution means something completely different than the RKBA provisions of the individual states (shown earlier by Jody).

Note that nearly all of the states have an individual RKBA, but almost none would say that the possession of ALL types of weapons are
protected. Some even say right in their constitutions that carrying concealed weapons is not protected, and most would say that certain weapons are not protected because they are of the types used by criminals. This is in keeping with the Miller decision.


But the Supreme Court could not have found based on a Collective Rights interpretation, rather than on the type of weapon in question, and said "But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below" because it is obvious that nearly all of the states did and still do have an individual RKBA, and the Supreme Court must have been aware of this.



And yes they did look at other histoical facts (King Alfred's Army included) to determine that the prevailing thought before and up to the drafting of the amendment was that each man possess arms.

They looked to other hisorical evidence (3 states contemporary militia acts) for the types of arms that should be kept, and who was to provide them.

However they looked to the state constitutions for "the extent of the right guaranteed", since of course that is where one might expect to find other (some contemporary) RKBA provisions.

[UpsideDownFlag]

220. lol. well said.

[UpsideDownFlag]

127. what's a "yellow dog" democrat?

[jody]

129. A Yellow dog Democrat

http://www.yellowdogdemocrat.com/history.htm
QUOTE
The term, Yellow Dog Democrat, blossomed during all of the Hoopla which surrounded the 1928 elections, when Al Smith ran for President against Herbert Hoover. During that campaign, Senator Tom Heflin, of Alabama, declined to back his fellow Democrat, Al Smith the Governor of NY. In fact it was much worse than that, Senator Heflin decided to back Herbert Hoover, who would then go on to become President- a Republican President no less. Heflin's controversial actions were considered heresy, especially in the South. As you can imagine, quite a large number of Alabamans vehemently disagreed with Senator Heflin's decision to cross his "Party Lines". Hence, the popular saying, "I'd vote for a yellow dog if he ran on the Democratic ticket" was born! It was adopted as the proud slogan of the staunch party loyalist.
At the time, this phrase certainly did not reflect well on Senator Heflin.
UNQUOTE

[thomas82]

133. Turn in my firearms hmmm

I would have to say hell no!!!! If it came to guns being confiscated it would be sad, but Im not worried as there will be plenty of sheep that will turn theirs in.
Tom

[Kenny the Croat]

155. Heck no

Then again, I don't need a gun for my own personal saftey.

I've done competition target shooting for quite some time now (lots of fun actually). It's a nice controled environment and, of course, it's always fun to see whose the best! The winner for fun shoots gets....the satisfaction of knowing that he beat everyone else. When it goes into NRA competitions, thats where things get alittle different. We're only using the longrifle .22 rounds though. It's practically a bb gun.

[anonymous44]

168. Absolutely Not

I would never hand them in.

[gatlingforme]

170. Yeah, if the non gun owners were willing to put a micro chip in their

forheads

[UpsideDownFlag]

171. they can have my guns when they pull them from my cold, dead hands.

i'd imagine slaveowners felt the same way about 150 years ago...

and the KKK felt the same way about segregation 65 years ago...

and the fundies probably feel about the same way about same sex marriage.

[Columbia]

172. Well, that is interesting

Slaveowners, the KKK, and fundies - all groups which desired to force their ignorant and bigoted beliefs over the rights of others.

Sure sounds like gun grabbers to me.

BTW, have you ever read about the racist roots of gun control?

[UpsideDownFlag]

173. i've read about the racist conservative start of the pro-gun movement

started in the 70's.

[Columbia]

176. Yeah right

You know where the phrase Saturday Night Special came from right? And just who is trying to ban them?

[hansberrym]

177. Keep reading...

Was the second Freedmen's Bureau Bill racist?

"...in consequence of any State or Local law, ordinance, police or other regulation, custom or prejudice, any of the civil rights belonging to white persons, including the right to make or enforce contract, to sue,...and to have full and equal benefits of laws and procedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right of bearing arms , are refused or denied to negroes...it shall be the duty of the President of the United States... to extend protection..." (my emphasis)
(Equal Justice Under Law, Hymann and Wiecek, Harper&Row publishers, copyright 1982)



And the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment, were they acting on racist impulses?

Congressional debates on the Fourteenth Amendment as quoted by Justice Hugo Black in his disent in Adamson v. People of Californina.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=332&invol=46&friend=oyez

'Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be-for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature-to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; <332 U.S. 46 , 106> the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments. (my emphasis)

[library_max]

195. And Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

The players and teams in the Nineteenth Century don't really mean much to any analysis in the 21st. Bush is hardly the ideological heir of Lincoln, and the NRA is hardly the ideological heir of the Freedman's Bureau. I will concede that in the 19th Century there was a lot to be said in favor of an individual RKBA. But guess what? This isn't the 19th Century.

[hansberrym]

198. Nor are men angels, they have never been and never will be. There...

will always be Slavers and Statists, and so the individual RKBA will always be needed.

Bush and CO. are selling us down the river so to speak, and judges such as Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit are aiding the Statist cause. Those judges, far from being Liberals in this respect, are the heirs to the post-civil war courts that refused to recognize the Incorporation of the 14th Amendment and also struck down the Civil Rights acts.



(you said)
I will concede that in the 19th Century there was a lot to be said in favor of an individual RKBA.
(end quote)


In fact a lot was said in the 19th century and earlier about the individual RKBA, and that was my point. There is this game being played by some on the Collective Rights side (not yourself, but the person I responded to earlier and others) that the individual RKBA is a 1970's creation by right wingers, when in fact the individual RKBA is the historically sound argument.

[library_max]

205. Once again, your saying so doesn't make it so. /nt

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wickerman]

227. Magic 200 - Locking

Sorry, let this flamefest go a little further than the gungeon norm.

Bye for now!

:hi: