Charlton Heston's speech

[lazs2]

sb said... "I disagree. If the 2nd Amendment were "quite clear," there would be no need for "2nd Amendment Scholars" nor would there be any argument over the founder's intent.

I see your point on hate crimes, but there's great distinction given to intent when the courts try murder cases. I'm not sure what the right answer is."

We can all read let the "scholars" who, as toad so elequently pointed out, have an agenda, try to twist it.   I think even a cursory look at the federalist papers will make it even clearer for you if need be...  

On hate crimes... to your credit you claim to not know what the right answer is.   maybe I don't either but...  A simple test is... do we wish to have some people treated differently under the law because of their race, religion sexual preferance or beliefs than others?   Or, put another way.... should some peoples race or beliefs be more protected under the law than others?  I say that should be obvious.   life in prison is allways life in prison.   10 years should be ten years and the death penalty is the death penalty.
lazs

[Elfenwolf]

Originally posted by Kieran


THIS is what chaps me most about the liberal viewpoint; you are ready to deny me the right to make up my own mind, or the privilege to take whatever precautions for my own health I deem necessary. Question for you; is a dentist allowed to deny me as a patient if I have HIV?

Kieran, I never even knew I was a "liberal" until I started posting on the bbs here. Is it liberal to respect an individual's right to keep personal information personal in light of there being no risk to people he comes in contact with, either professionally or personally? Sorry, but you failed to show a legitimate health risk by using an HIV positive dentist.

<> and Thanks all for the spirited debate, was fun. Oh and Toad, quit dancing around the issue and tell us what you REALLY think- Are you in favor of gun control or not???

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Elfenwolf
 Oh and Toad, quit dancing around the issue and tell us what you REALLY think- Are you in favor of gun control or not???

I know, all he does is post things from guys I've never heard of. I mean Patrick Henry? WTF? Wasn't he the drummer for White Lion or something?

-Sikboy

[Masherbrum]

A civilian shouldn't be allowed to own an ASSAULT RIFLE, IMO.  Other than that, if you NEED an armory of Handguns, Shotguns (best for Home defense anyways) and HUNTING rifles, enjoy.

Oh, I own a Heckler & Koch USP .45 and shoot it once a week (400 rounds) and do NOT belong to the NRA.  

Karaya2

[midnight Target]

I think this is what they had in mind.

[Toad]

Me? I'm a simply a Constitutionalist. I believe in the 2nd just as much as I believe in the 1st and all the rest.

Here's something I find really interesting.

James Madison Proposes the Bill of Rights to the House of Representatives

"It is clear that Madison truly thought that a bill of rights was not necessary except to mollify those who thought it was required, to preclude another constitutional convention and to encourage the final two states to ratify the Constitution.  

In later years, his letters revealed no great pride of authorship.  In a letter of 1821 he referred to "those safe, if not necessary, and those politic, if not obligatory, amendments."  

In his speech to Congress the best he could say of a bill of rights was that it was "neither improper nor absolutely useless."  This is, certainly, faint praise."

Seems that Madison must have thought these rights were "self-evident" eh?

[mietla]

Toad.

Now let's hear from the leftie 2-nd Ammendment "scholars".

[Sandman]

I've never quite understood how the 2nd Amendment became a left/right issue.

[midnight Target]

The Second Amendment  
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.
Questions
1. Does the historical evidence support the conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess firearms?
2.  If the Second Amendment does create an individual right, how broad is the right?  Does it include the right to possess arms that would be useful to a militia today--hand grenades, rocket launchers, etc.?  Or does it create only a right to possess arms that would have been used by a militia in 1791--muskets?  Or is the right answer somewhere between these extremes?
3.  The Second Amendment speaks of the right to bear arms.  Does this suggest, for example, that there is no right to possess weapons that could not be carried, such as cannons?
4.  If the underlying concern that inspired the Second Amendment--fear of an abusive federal government oppressing states and their citizens--no longer exists, should that affect how we interpret the Amendment?
5.  What is the argument for choosing what provisions of the Bill of Rights we will give full effect?
6.  If the test for whether a provision of the Bill of Rights is incorporated into the 14th Amendment is whether the right in question is "fundamental to the American scheme of justice" what conclusion should we come to with respect to the right to keep and bear arms?
7. Which of the following regulations of firearms is constitutional?: (1) an age restriction, (2) a four-day waiting period for purchase of a firearm, (3) a ban on the carrying of concealed weapons.

Not so obvious is it?

[mietla]

Originally posted by midnight Target

1. Does the historical evidence support the conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess firearms?

Of course it does. See Toad's posts above. Who can better interpret the meaning of a text than the people who wrote it.

Originally posted by midnight Target

2. If the Second Amendment does create an individual right, how broad is the right? Does it include the right to possess arms that would be useful to a militia today--hand grenades, rocket launchers, etc.? Or does it create only a right to possess arms that would have been used by a militia in 1791--muskets? Or is the right answer somewhere between these extremes?
[/b/

Arms, not ordnance. 1791 musket was the state of the art killing machine at the time.

Originally posted by midnight Target

3. The Second Amendment speaks of the right to bear arms. Does this suggest, for example, that there is no right to possess weapons that could not be carried, such as cannons?

Cannon is an ordnace I believe.

Originally posted by midnight Target

4. If the underlying concern that inspired the Second Amendment--fear of an abusive federal government oppressing states and their citizens--no longer exists, should that affect how we interpret the Amendment?

No longer exists ???? Ha. You are surely jesting. Just because they don't kill you for no reason does not mean that they are not oppressive.

Personally, I consider a property theft to be an oppression.

But, sure, I agree that it could be worse.

Originally posted by midnight Target

5. What is the argument for choosing what provisions of the Bill of Rights we will give full effect?

Not sure what you mean

Originally posted by midnight Target

6. If the test for whether a provision of the Bill of Rights is incorporated into the 14th Amendment is whether the right in question is "fundamental to the American scheme of justice" what conclusion should we come to with respect to the right to keep and bear arms?

You don't mean that we should pick and choose based on the opinion polls, do you?

Originally posted by midnight Target

7. Which of the following regulations of firearms is constitutional?: (1) an age restriction, (2) a four-day waiting period for purchase of a firearm, (3) a ban on the carrying of concealed weapons.

Age.

Originally posted by midnight Target

Not so obvious is it?

 It is to me.

[midnight Target]

Text of the Second Amendment and Related Contemporaneous Provisions

              Second Amendment:  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.


              English Bill of Rights:  That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689). 1


              Connecticut:  Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818). 2


              Kentucky:  [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792). 3


              Massachusetts:  The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780). 4


              North Carolina:  [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 5


              Pennsylvania:  That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 6


              The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1790). 7


              Rhode Island:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842). 8


              Tennessee:  [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796). 9


              Vermont:  [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777). 10


              Virginia:  That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. 11

from http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/2amteach/sources.htm

[Toad]

Ah, MT.. I THOUGHT that ground had been plowed before!

The old UMKC Law School page! That's a lesson plan, you know.

US vs Emerson

US vs Miller

Quilici vs Morton Grove  

answer most of your questions.

Then there's the recent the 5th Circuit Court decison:

"VII. Conclusion...

We agree with the district court that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia."


There really isn't anything to debate to my way of thinking. YMMV.

[midnight Target]

Reading the above from the State's Constitutions some seem obviiusly to maintain individual rights while some seem to point more to the militia, and some are ambiguous:

Definitely Individual Right to Bear Arms:
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818).

Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792).

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

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842). (clearest of them all surprisingly enough)

Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777).




Militia:

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780).

North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776).

Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796).

Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Toad
Ah, MT.. I THOUGHT that ground had been plowed before!

The old UMKC Law School page! That's a lesson plan, you know.

US vs Emerson

US vs Miller

Quilici vs Morton Grove  

answer most of your questions.

Then there's the recent the 5th Circuit Court decison:

"VII. Conclusion...

We agree with the district court that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia."


There really isn't anything to debate to my way of thinking. YMMV.

Thanks Toad, I figured that out. My point was that there still seems to be room for argument. The 5th Circuits decision also upheld a federal restriction on the right to bear arms as "reasonable". So I guess we're left with "You got the right" and "we can restrict it".

[Toad]

You are going to post them all right?

Here's the one I like right now:

Kansas:  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 tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.  Bill of Rights, § 4 (enacted 1859, art. I, § 4).