yeah you own your garden and that is a ridiculous attempt of dichotomy. if I have the power to allow someone else to KEEP MY GARDEN I own it and you never could overcome that point I made over a year ago that just because that might have been the MAIN reason, it did not EXCLUDE Other reasons.
Everything that relates to the topic of this thread is answered. Anything NOT related... I'm not interested. Feel free to open your own thread. Or if they relate to historical aspects surrounding the 2nd A, you can use the following threads. Depending on what you're focusing on: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/ Though I would advice you to make sure you are clear about what the idiom "keep and bear arms" meant at the time it was used in the 2nd A. This being the best thread for that. Maybe you'll have better luck than the rest of the posters who have failed to rebut my points in these threads.
that's a failure to actually address his well reasoned points. Keep and bear includes owning and you cannot cite a single person who matters who can prove otherwise. what FOUNDER said that the federal government had the power to ban the OWNERSHIP of guns but not keeping and bearing?
It includes owning and it also includes NOT owning. Owning or not is irrelevant in what relates to "keeping and bearing". This thread might be too long to expect people to read it in its entirety. But I have pointed out many times that at the time, owning guns was as trivial as owning anything. Owning a house, owning a horse, owning pants.... People had a RIGHT to own THINGS. So it would be ridiculous for them to draft a Constitutional Amendment to enshrine owning any of them. There was no reason to. No mass shootings of unarmed people every single day, no children dead in schools, no shoot-outs in parades...
That's right! They never did. And that might explain why they never thought to enshrine it in a constitutional Amendment. They never envisioned either people wanting to ban certain guns, or mass shooters being allowed to buy assault weapons at the corner store and then going into schools to kill children. In what relates to this thread, only awareness that it's not protected. It doesn't JUST benefit my side. It might benefit yours. For example, being aware of this might motivate you to start a movement for an amendment that DOES protect it.
There are those who, with sufficient pretzel twisting and intellectualizing, can turn a semi into a wagon. For the unsophisticated, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
yeah, I am waiting for them to claim that keeping and bearing does not include Possessing Owning Using Carrying storing buying acquiring cleaning polishing fixing transporting etc its all ludicrous because they cannot find a single-I repeat a SINGLE contemporaneous reference that suggests that keeping and bearing excludes any of the above
no need to, we know that keeping and bearing includes ownership and always has. and when you add in the tenth amendment, ANY honest observer understands that federal gun control is dishonest
I think it should be clear by now to you that I can address ANY topic related to what I say in the appropriate thread. I have no interest in addressing what I DON'T say. For example, this.... And you can't cite ME saying otherwise either. What I have said MANY times is that it ALSO includes "not owning". And YOU can't cite a single person who can prove otherwise. Owning or not owning is as irrelevant to "keep and bear arms" as it is to the 2nd A. See? The fact that you have to debate what I DON'T say is the clearest indication that you have ZERO arguments to rebut what I DO say.
This is exactly right. The 2A was clearly for military purposes only. And 'being necessary to the security of a free State' is also an overlooked part. That security is now provided by standing army and national guard. States have the right to allow every mentally ill person to carry or only allow their State guard to own. And again, the summary of 2A is "A well-regulated militia shall not be infringed." The other parts are fillers (being necessary and right of people). The commas in the 2A clarify it perfectly.
we all know that the goal of the anti gun left is to try to pretend that the second amendment does not prevent bans on semi auto rifles (now) and handguns (later). that is the entire purpose of this flowery sophistry and it proves, beyond a doubt-that the anti gun left KNOWS that the second amendment is a bar to their goals
that has been discredited more times than I can remember and the controlling supreme court authority destroys that nonsense. and when you add in Article One Section Eight and the tenth amendment, there is clearly no legitimate basis for federal gun control. States are constrained by both incorporation and their own constitutions so they cannot ban guns either
The NRA SCOTUS of the 21st century completely changed the original intent and meaning of 2A from what our founders intended. The 2A is ONLY about the militia and Art1Sec8 in the Constitution backs it up.
that is absolute nonsense. and you are completely wrong. As Kates noted in his seminal U of Michigan law review article, that even if a military purpose was the primary one, there is NOTHING that suggest individual rights were excluded. And HTF do you have a pool of men from which a militia is drawn who would be effective in serving in what is an ad hoc military force-without them being able to possess and use firearms when NOT in a military function> NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION delegates ANY POWER to the federal government to regulate privately owned small arms. that didn't occur until the FDR nonsense and if you don't like Heller, then you should despise the fDR nonsense. even well known leftwing legal scholars such as TRIBE, LEVINSON, Van Alstyne and my old buddy at Yale Akhil Reed Amar, concede the individual right and of course Volokh, Koppel Kates Cramton etc support the obvious individual rights interpretation. EVEN THE MINORITY IN HELLER conceded the individual rights interpretation The only people who pretend a collective "rights" exists are those who are leftwing advocates who want to push gun control
First, you have to meet the threshold of 'well-regulated' in 2A. Then, Art1 Sec8 clearly says Congress "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia" not Cabela's. You gotta read amendment as a whole, not parts.
so you labor under the erroneous belief that "well regulated" somehow lessens the negative restriction upon the federal government that is barred from infringing on the right of the PEOPLE? OMG that is hilarious. that CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO ARM A MILITIA does not mean it can ban PRIVATE CITIZENS ACTING IN A PRIVATE capacity from owning firearms the federal government can tell an activated militia where it serves and what uniforms and weapons it uses, it cannot tell free citizens in their own states what they have to wear, who they can assemble with and what arms they can own have you ever litigated a second amendment case or lectured at a law school on the subject?
Doesn't say anything about about gov't CAN'T do it, that's the point. And the bigger point i keep bringing up is 'being necessary to the security of a free state.' Nope, never litigated. Rely on Justices and scholars prior to 21st century that did study it. Don't get me wrong. There's nothing in constitution that says a person can't own firearms. The primary thing the 2A is saying is that 'A well-regulated militia shall not be infringed.'
sure it does' WTF do you think SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means? And that is absolutely wrong-it says the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE not the "right" of a state" or of a militia. deal with Kates's seminal article on the second amendment that I cited above a side note, why do you think everyone who supports the improper interpretation of the second amendment is a leftist? or why gun control is a specifically leftist goal?
A well-regulated militia shall not be infringed, even if that means only those in State Nat'l Guard. The people make up that state and militia. I do thank you for challenging me on some of the neo-21st century interpretations of the 2A, just prefer the original intent and meaning for the first 225+ years of our country. on your side note, many moderates (and some on the right) even acknowledge there should be basic gun control such as background checks. it's not just a left issue.
it doesn't say that a well regulated (one in working order) shall not be infringed and your interpretation ignores the era, and practical reality. Until FDR came around, there was no attempt to create federal gun control. what people want in terms of federal gun control is worthless in this discussion. the obvious intent was that the federal government couldn't infringe on the RIGHT of the PEOPLE which means individuals can you find one law review article from a top 40 law school that actually supports your interpretation BTW HOW CAN A MILITIA function if those who answer the call up don't have arms and haven't been able to use them in a non militia function prior to the call up?
i love the claim that the second protects MILITIAS "right to keep and bear arms" rather than the people. where does that come from other than a desire to avoid the obvious intent of the amendment?
The 2A starts with 'Well-regulated' and ends with 'shall not be infringed' with two clarification commas in the middle. And i've quoted HARDCORE conservative justices but i think you bashed them instead of their thoughts on the subject. I find them to be more reliable than Internet sources since they've studied the Constitution and been on SCOTUS. "Second amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. … The Framers clearly intended to secure the right to bear arms essentially for military purposes.” - Republican Chief Justice Burger “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment right is not unlimited…. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”- Republican Justice Scalia
Burger-check out his legal education and his resume before that political hack was elevated to chief justice He's a guy who didn't have any scholarly articles on the second amendment didn't ever lecture on it nor author any opinions on it Scalia's DICTA (look that up) was designed to keep an erratic Justice Kennedy on board and was written BEFORE INCORPORATION and was mainly referring to STATE Laws. He also was fluffing the GCA of 1968 which he knew was unconstitutional but was unwilling overturn long established precedent if doing so "would cause social upheaval" (according to one of his most famous clerks-NW Law professor Steven G Calabresi at the 2012 U of Cincinnati Taft Lecture on Constitutional law) tell us why What Burger said after he was no longer on the court matter to any of us who have a superior legal education to him (which means anyone who went to a top fifty law school)
