The Second Amendment

[Toad]

It requires at least four of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court to agree to grant the Petition for Certiorari. Maybe Roberts will push this one and settle it once and for all.

If they refuse to hear it... that's still good. The ruling stands and can be cited in the next cases that come from the antis.

[Charon]

As I posted before in this thread when the "nuculur" argument was trotted out, the definitions of arms and ordnance were well known at the time, just as they are distinct today. I suppose heavy machineguns are a grey area somewhat, but that's about it.

http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=192182&referrerid=5405

Easily. There is no "If" by the way and it never has been, even minutely, about hunting or sporting. The long drawn out debate over the role of a standing army vs "national guard style militia" vs "people casual militia" is well documented. It was all about power to the people or state.

As I said, the difference between Arms and Ordnance were clearly understood at the time. From another site/poster on the subject:
quote:

Websters Dictionary of 1828 (appropriate time period NOTE I cut some non weapons related references from the definition)

'ARMS, n. plu. [L. arma.]

1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body. [edit: clearly personal weapons]

2. War; hostility.

Arms and the man I sing.

To be in arms, to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life.

To arms is a phrase which denotes a taking arms for war or hostility; particularly, a summoning to war.

To take arms, is to arm for attack or defense.

(sic)Sire(sic) (probably Fire) arms, are such as may be charged with powder, as cannon, muskets, mortars, &c. [edit: a broader coverage here for the general term "fire arms" meaning powder weapons]

A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary. [edit: now back to the point]

ORD'NANCE, n. [from ordinance.] Cannon or great guns, mortars and howitzers; artillery.

See, the distinction is clear, and was very clear at the time.
quote:

The Federalist No. 46:

" Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

500,000 armed citizens vs 30,000 with cannons etc. is a fair exchange. Especially after the 500,000 begin to liberate ordnance. The founders were apparently content with the capabilities of personal arms, as they had just fought a revolution and knew what even a lightly armed population could accomplish against even the most powerful military power in the world at the time.

Charon

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Toad
Yep.

So what did YOU think? Think he's right or wrong?

Not what you wish it was...what do you think of his actual argument?

Well it is a long article, but the jist of it seems to be that the 2nd is subject to controls placed on weapons without losing the original meaning of the Amendment.

makes sense to me.

Still doesn't dispute my point in the least.

[Charon]

Well it is a long article, but the jist of it seems to be that the 2nd is subject to controls placed on weapons without losing the original meaning of the Amendment.

Sure. Controls placed on weapons deemed suitable to mount an insurrection against the military forces of a tyrannical government. I'm all for mandatory training in arms at the high school level

Charon

[Toad]

I guess it depends on whether or not one takes a "textualist" approach to the Constitution.

If we take a textualist approach to interpreting the Constitution, we find that all military weapons are considered "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment.

I believe here the author admits that in a textualist understanding, ALL military weapons are arms.

I now ask, what other approach to the Constitution can there be other than textualist?

How can one read into the Constitution something that is not there? How can one conversely ignore something that is written in the Constitution?

The answer is obvious and it has already been demonstrated in this thread.

If something is clearly written in the Constitution, supported by other external writings of the Founders and supported by similar if not exact language in the early state Constitutions.... then you ignore it by pretending it does not mean what it says.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Toad, the Constitution is a "living document", interpreted by "emanations of the penumbra". How could you not know that? In fact, the Constitution is so adaptable that if you look closely, you can not only see that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "militia", interpreted as military armed services of the states, but you can also see the "separation of church and state clause" that isn't written either. Open your eyes man, for the love of (insert the non offending diety or lack thereof of your choice here) man!

[Helrazr1]

I always love these threads on the validity of the 2nd.

MT, first off, let me just say that I find your name (Midnight TARGET) especially fitting when viewed next to your opinions on this issue.  I find lots of irony and humor in that.

Now that I got that out of the way:

Anyone know what the definition of a militia is?  I have looked at probably 25 definitions , and they all have the same word in common: citizens!
 Here's just one example.   Not to mention that the ammendent itself reads, "....The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the word "people" is a pretty concrete word.  I don't see how you confuse the word "people" with the word "state".  

As for the whole nuke thing, that can be summed up fairly simply.....WTF?
Use your head now.  There obviously weren't nukes in the time that the framers were around, right.  As much as I dislike it, the government has got to draw a line somewhere.  This becomes the impass between the people and the government.  We want what we want, and they know, in their infinite wisdom, that if we get what we want, someone will hurt themselves.  It will be an argument that will stand as long as weapons continue to evolve.  I am a gun owning, law abiding, card carrying member of the NRA, but I do believe that there are some things that should be out of our reach, such as nukes.  This is just common sense.  I don't think that full auto's should be banned though, but this is my opinion, and I don't get to make the rules.

Finally, as for your spouting off of random websites that support your points, for every site you find, I can find an opposing one.  I could do a google search and find 100 sites that say that banging your dog is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and we should all do it on our Friday nights at home.  Does that make it fact? My point is, don't buy into half of the garbage that you can google on the intardnet.  Almost any article you're gonna find is written by someone with an opinion on the matter, so they're going to be biased.  Try using a little free thought on the subject instead of just linking someone elses opinions in leu of your own.

Regards,

[ravells]

Hi everyone who remembers me...just thought I'd choose the most combative thread to say..'hello' on - that was usually where I was at.

Just like to say I'm missing Aces High a lot..(into 3d modelling now).

Hope you're all well.

Ravs

p.s. oh my word...they've even remembered my avatar...that's a good company!

[Curval]

Originally posted by ravells
Hi everyone who remembers me...just thought I'd choose the most combative thread to say..'hello' on - that was usually where I was at.

Just like to say I'm missing Aces High a lot..(into 3d modelling now).

Hope you're all well.

Ravs

p.s. oh my word...they've even remembered my avatar...that's a good company!

'ello Ravs old bean.

[ravells]

I see you havn't escaped yet!

Alright with you, Curval?

Ravs

p.s. tell me...have you done any mosquito raids? I really miss them! Oh and the scenarios....I really miss them too! The highlight was telling 303 squadron to stop yabbering in polish...which they actually were. That was a grand highlight in my gaming life which I shall never live again.

[Helrazr1]

Originally posted by ravells
Hi everyone who remembers me...just thought I'd choose the most combative thread to say..'hello' on - that was usually where I was at.

Just like to say I'm missing Aces High a lot..(into 3d modelling now).

Hope you're all well.

Ravs

p.s. oh my word...they've even remembered my avatar...that's a good company!

LMAO, probably good timing on the hijack!

[ravells]

oops....sorry...please go back to your verbal combat...I was an intermission!

Ravs

[Helrazr1]

Don't be sorry, I love it when that happens!

[ravells]

Bah...I see that Combat Tour is still the impossible dream. But in terms of service the Aces High team were outstanding. I shall never forget that.

:end of thread-jack:

Ravs

p.s. I see that Lazs is still here and would just like to say a hello to him! (Still havn't read the book although it's still on the shelf...one day!)

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by sgt203
Am intersted in Comments as to how people feel as far as if the right to keep and bear arms extends to the CITIZENS.. and is not empowered only to the states

I for one have always beleived the right for Citizens to KEEP and bear arms is just that, a right for each individual citizen to own, keep and bear arms.

 

And that about sums it up for me as well

BTW, you ARE the militia