Errrrp derrrp!

Yup! And man will never fly!

Bong, and bong again...

Bing, bing, bing!

the resemblance to the bong, also.

No, I'm not "bong"...... But I can see why this guy had fun with y'all!

Maybe he wasn't really that good as he got PPR'd.

...he was probably respectful of all 'suiters'.

Being such a stickler for time and armaments, the civilian population of the U.S. is relegated to using firearm types which have been around for over a century -- and that does not include full auto. If Mr. Story were alive today, he might wonder why citizens had no access to an M-16 rather than the AR-15.

On the off chance you are referencing the rifle vs tanks & planes chesnut, I can only point out that this "argument" was proffered before each loss a super power suffered at the hands of p.j.-wearing guerillas.

What you're spouting is RW BS! Pure and VERY simple!

You took the new "Red Dawn" movie too seriously!

NVA regulars. You are confusing the Taliban with someone.......................................

And they were part of the same force!

Nice try!

But I think you are confusing the Taliban with the Mujahadeen!

Only in the sense that their chain of command went to Hanoi and VC members may or may not have been selected from the regular NV military. They were not the same force any more than any other guerrilla units vs other regular units.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong_and_PAVN_strategy,_organization_and_structure#Recruitment_and_Training
http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/guerrilla/

Oh, that that "women can't handle combat arms MOSes" bullshit
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-photos-multimedia/69894-what-biggest-difference-between-2-great-guerilla-forces-vietcong-vs-taliban.html

And the Iraqis and Afghans got jet fighters with bases which can't be attacked & stuff.

You saw Red Dawn? I didn't, but I'm not into that stuff.

BTW, if your RW truly believed the U.S. couldn't defeat indigenous guerillas -- if Cold War liberals had believed this -- then we would have been involved with fewer wars.

Ha! You have been revealed, however! A believer in American military hubris, and would likely look favorably on yet another intervention, based on your own outlook!

Goodness, rdharma, you should be careful about that RW thing you obstensibly despise.

Quote from Eleanors38 - "Yeah! Like B-52s and naval cruisers and helicopters & everything!

And the Iraqis and Afghans got jet fighters with basses which can't be attacked & stuff.

You saw Red Dawn? I didn't, but I'm not into that stuff.

BTW, if your RW truly believed the U.S. couldn't defeat indigenous guerillas -- if Cold War liberals had believed this -- then we would have been involved with fewer wars.

Ha! You have been revealed, however! A believer in American military hubris, and would likely look favorably on yet another intervention, based on your own outlook!

Goodness, rdharma, you should be careful about that RW thing you obstensibly despise"

Buwhahahahhahhaaa! You are truly busted, Eleanors38! Thank-you very much!

...the B-52s

...is a Bison-52??

20 shot pneumatic rifle. Expensive, hard to train, capable of killing a deer, let alone a human, no problem.
The Austrians were busy training with them at the time.

The idea that the Founders didn't suspect the potential improvements to small arms coming in the latter centuries is historically ignorant.

It is a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock weapon fitted with a multishot revolving cylinder. It was intended for shipboard use to prevent boarding. The barrel was 3 feet (0.91 m) long with a bore of 1.25 inches (32 mm). It had a pre-loaded cylinder which held 11 charges and could fire 63 shots in seven minutes—this at a time when the standard soldier's musket could at best be loaded and fired three times per minute.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

The actual text, however, speaks only to state security because at the time, there was no national army.

But then lawyers are not historians, so Story can be forgiven for his mistake. The SoL was a loose organization of persons who applied direct coercion to British officials and those who empathized with them. Many of the DOI signers were pretty ambivalent about such mob level tactics since, as the new elites, such measure could just as easily be employed against them. Indeed, such an attempt in the form of Shay's rebellion, was a significant impetus in forming a stronger central govt. under the Constitution.

...for the Navy, largely protecting ships from hostile boarders. They were national, because the miniscule USN was national. Most of the few Federal regulars that existed in the 1780s and 90s were deployed in the "West" against Indians. For the most part, it was wholely inadequate for any kind of state, let alone national, defense. States were anxious to have the right to defend themselves because the Feds simply couldn't. Also, there was the matter of slave revolts and the Southern states simply did not trust that the Feds. would help in suppressing them.

Last edited Sun Jun 23, 2013, 08:39 PM - Edit history (2)

Yes, that is what marine corps generally were and are. Of course they all had this mission creep thing going over the couple of centuries. Although the Japanese had, not so much with the JSDF, marines they don't have a separate word. They simply used the term "navy infantry".

The southern states could have simply, and may have, made slave patrol members sworn police officers, not having anything to do with a militia. I'm guessing you read the paper written by HCI, when it was called that, board member Carl Bogus and was later rediscovered by Thom Hartmann. There is a good reason Bogus' opus has been ignored in academic circles. Slavery was not unique to the south, nor were slave revolts. NYC had seen its share during the founding period.

In fact, until the late 1960s, the south generally had stricter weapons laws than the rest of the country. Some of them have been repealed, like South Carolina's and Tennessee's handgun bans, and some have been struck down like Georgia's. Texas banned open carry in 1860. Of course, all of those laws, including Florida's ban on open carry in 1893 (passed because white society had issues with the sight of African American migrant workers toting).

Yet better actors like Stewart and Fonda did their thing. Then there is Eddy Albert

Wasn't that how he lost a finger?

the would be lethal one to the chest was stopped by a metal cigarette case.

As you mentioned, James Doohan took six rounds at Juno Beach. Did you know that they were from a fellow Canadian?

The America gun culture began in 17th c. Virginia. As major slave-holders acquired more and more land, citizenship increasingly began to be identified with gun ownership, strictly a white man's prerogative, rather than land ownership as had was the case in the North. I'm relying on Kathleen Brown's book and numerous lectures from professors I TAed for.

Obviously, no ones hands were clean on the question of slavery, but after independence it became a purely Southern institution.

...only recognized almost exclusively for white males at that time. Neither women nor especially people of other races had their rights recognized and respected. Since they were often viewed as property, they were not allowed to own land or guns and could not vote in elections.

The recognition and respect for rights has been slow in the US. It was viewed as despicable to allow slaves or Native Americans to have guns. Voting rights were accorded to African Americans during the Civil War but it was a long struggle for those rights to be respected everywhere. Women got to vote nearly a hundred and fifty years after the country was founded. The last group recognized as having a right to vote were Native Americans in Utah in 1956.

The long effort to have people respected as equals continues today, not just regarding race, gender, orientation, religion or other aspects but to ensure that laws respect people equally and without bias. States where concealed carry of weapons permits are granted on a "may issue" basis, in some cases, assigned permits by discretionary and inherently unequal methods. These decisions can sometimes be based more on wealth, popularity, political patronage and/or nepotism. For this reason a "shall issue" system is more respectful of equality and rights.

How much more secure are we to know that not only does government respect for our privacy and property but in the knowledge that no one's rights are subject to favoritism and influence?

There is a billboard near my house in Ohio that reads something like, "If you love your freedom, thank a soldier." The picture is a big flag in the background with a guy in a USMC uniform saluting. oops.

My youngest's senior yearbook has a "tribute to our troops in Afghanistan" with pics of soldiers and yellow ribbons etc. Problem was, the pics were Mostly Germans and Canadians.

Never had any troops requisition my house! But iffin' they try..... I've got my firelock loaded and ready!

With funny hats....... that do and say foolish stuff that amuses me! Thank-you very much,..... citizen!

Excellent! Encore!

I has a "sad"!

discntnt: {Jos Story} is not an individual distant from the founders. This is someone with legal experience and credentials.

So far so good, you're spot on. You were terribly wrong tho, when you wrote this: It is plain that the founders intended the 2A to protect an individual RKBA.

discntnt cherry picks Justice Joseph Story, 1833: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them..."

Here's Joseph Story's quote in fuller context: The importance of this {2ndA} article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Note in the fuller context above, Story makes these two contentions:
1 The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers
2 The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It's obvious he's speaking of the militia, since he praises the militia for the very same thing he praises 'the people' for, protection against the arbitrary or usurped power of rulers. Individuals couldn't do what a militia could.

Story's quote in really fuller context: The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
And yet, thought this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How is it practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833)

Final Paragraph above: How could Story think 2ndA applied as an individual right, when he clearly thought that americans waning interest & indifference to militia service, was what would undermine all the protection intended by the 2ndAmendment?
Had he thought it an individual rkba unconnected with militia service, what difference would it have made that americans were indifferent to militia service & wanted to be rid of all regulations?
What discntnt has cited is simply out of context cherry picking, which is how 2ndAmendment Mythology handles this quotation by Justice Story, they have to subert it, just as scalia did in heller.

established militias without clear chain of command or purpose. It has nothing to do with private gun ownership. You were reading something that wasn't there.

johnston: It was refering to unorganized militias as in established militias without clear chain of command or purpose. It has nothing to do with private gun ownership. You were reading something that wasn't there.

Wrong, I was reading what is there & what you can deny all day long but it'll still be there in the morning, Joseph Story confirming the militia was the reason for the 2ndAmendment, and not as an individual right.
... 'unorganized militias' in the early 1800's were those white male scofflaws who shirked militia duty, made a mockery of it, paid others in their stead, deserted, or wanted nothing whatsoever to do with the 2ndA & rather'd the plow.
Story of course includes these shirkers & scofflaws in those who were indifferent, but he was referring to a growing sense of indifference amongst the american people - as in those ~15,000 militia eligible white males who didn't show up for the War of 1812.
Your red herring about private gun ownership is ludicrous & just churned out off the top of your head in order to put something up, anything.
Story was not just referring to the 'unorganized'. Read it again johnston, slowly this time, & maybe you'll realize how wrong you are.

Story: And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations.
How is it practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights... US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1833)

Note also how Jos Story uses 'the people', in first & second paragraph above. 'How is it practical to keep the people duly armed without some organization'.... He is clearly speaking of militia age white males, since they were the only ones eligible for militia duty - the organization. He is not speaking of everyone, he is speaking of the people as the militia.
You people have no legs to stand on, when it comes to Jos Story. Except for 2nd Amendment Mythology.

I find it unfortunate that your patronizing word salad is actually thought of reasonable discourse. It will still be there tomorrow, and your interpretation is still wrong. There is no reason on any planet your say so makes it so. Have to provide real evidence. No, that doesn't include Mike "I'll falsify my citations" Bellesiles and Carl Bogus.

No it isn't and no he wasn't. It's rather obvious that the man was able to both accurately spell and differentiate the means of both words. Had he meant militia, he would have used the term militia.

In all instances in the BOR, the right of the people is an individual right. The fed have the power to call up the militia; whether it does so or not has no bearing on the individual RKBA. The right still stands alone.

Yup! Riiiiiiight!

eleanors: The right referenced in 2A is that of the people, not of the militia. In all instances in the BOR, the right of the people is an individual right.

This is old hat, along with the grammar ruse involving the semi colon. Even scalia in heller recognized a militia connection, but at the same time fabricated a militia disconnect:

According to Scalia, the “militia” reference in the first part of the amendment simply “announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotuscnd.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

.. and then went on to fabricate how the people were meant to have an individual rkba in order to prevent elimination of the militia - being a force pool type thingy. Ha.
2ndA is unique in bor since a militia is defined as being armed people, armed citizens.
Buy a new hat, eleanors.

eleanors: The fed have the power to call up the militia; whether it does so or not has no bearing on the individual RKBA. The right still stands alone.

The feds, & states, have the right to call up the organized militia - being the national guards.
The Unorganized Militia, those scores of millions of americans 17-45+ not part of the national guards, haven't been called up in any significant strength, ever.
The Unorganized Militia fails the 2ndA litmus test, in that it's not well regulated.
The Multitudes, The Proud, The UNORGANIZED.

"According to Scalia, the “militia” reference in the first part of the amendment simply “announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.”

This is in fact, consistent with the text of the amendment.

Amendment 2 says "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 is exactly the same thing as saying "because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Textually, those two phrases have exactly the same meaning.

So, your analysis is wrong.

Second and more importantly - and this inconvenient bit of fact destroys your entire premise - the bill of rights in which amendment 2 is contained, was at the time of its writing a "government shall not" document. It authorizes nothing, grants no powers to government, and specifically enumerates things which government shall not do.

"Congress shall make no law..."

"...shall not be infringed"

"No soldier shall be..."

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless..."

They are consistent that way - each specifying what government is forbidden from doing, and consistent with what the preamble says.






The preamble to the bill of rights makes this intent quite clear:

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

http://billofrights.org/

So basically, you got nothing.

discntnt: Had he meant militia, he would have used the term militia.

He did write militia, several times in the full quote. The whole quote in context was about the need for a well regulated militia, not the need for unorganized americans with an individual rkba disconnected from militia service.
Jos Story used 'the people' as meaning the militia - the two were used interchangably in the 2ndAmendment, since the militia was a unique organization in the bor consisting of 'white male' people, voting citizens.

You evidently didn't grasp this: Story makes these two contentions:
1 The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers
2 The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers

Knowing 'the people' could bear arms in militia was a strong moral check against the arbitrary power of rulers, since those tyrannical rulers knew the people were the militia which could be activated as the 'natural defence of a free country'. If there was no connection to a militia, just armed individuals, there was no fear of 'unorganized militiamen' by tyrannical rulers - it was this indifference to militia service that Jos Story was worried about.
Had the people only had rkba individually, disconnected from militia service, Story would not have made any sense. Why would tyrranical rulers with their own organized armies or guards, be concerned about unorganized armed citizens/mob?

Saul Cornell: Finally, one often hears the puzzling claim that none of the great 19th century commentators on the Constitution accepted the militia-based reading of the Second Amendment. This would have come as a shock to the most influential 19th century commentator, Justice Joseph Story. In his landmark Commentaries on the Constitution, Story not only described the {2ndA} as the “palladium of liberty” but he went on to note:
“And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.”
Story’s invocation of the grand palladium of liberty concerned the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia, and had nothing to do with hand guns or other weapons owned primarily for individual self defense. It was the absence of regulation, not too much regulation that Story feared. All too often, when gun rights advocates and their scholarly allies quote Story they truncate his quote.
http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/origins/print.cfm?articleid=7

Quite funny.

The critical and obvious failure of your discredited militia clause position: The "right" in the Second and all other BOR amendments are individual rights. The only linkage to militia is that when called, citizens must report with a weapon suitable for military service ("well regulated&quot . Clearly, that is the Fed's interest in the Second, and it doesn't speak to other arms which the People may keep and bear or for what purposes.

If you want to get into punctuation as an argument, talk to the NYT, which is obsessed with the comma after "state." Such back bench tediousness.

eleanors: If you are going to cite authorities, you are out-numbered

I cite reputable authorities & sources, not pro gun quacks like volukh kopel & lott.

The critical and obvious failure of your discredited militia clause position: The "right" in the Second and all other BOR amendments are individual rights.

Youre half right; the amendments in US bill of rights are also limitations on the powers of congress.
And the 'right' in the 2nd amendment indeed granted an INDIVIDUAL the right to belong to a well reg'd militia, just as the English 'Have Arms' decree granted an individual right to belong to the english militia. The RKBA in 2ndA is a constitutional individual right to belong to a well regulated militia, which satisfies both aspects of the US bill of rights - individual rights & limitations on congress.
The people & the militia are used interchangably, since a militia is armed white male people.
Thus, rightwing interpretation is exposed yet prevails due the lunacy of the gwbush administration.

eleanors: The only linkage to militia is that when called, citizens must report with a weapon suitable for military service ("well regulated&quot . Clearly, that is the Fed's interest in the Second, and it doesn't speak to other arms which the People may keep and bear or for what purposes.

Abra cadabra, hocus pocus, it's voodoo magic; here's webster's 1828 dictionary, pls point out exactly where webster defines 'well regulated' as whatever your'e claiming it is above, reporting for duty with a weapon I guess you claim it:

REG'ULATE, v.t. 1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/regulate

Your "reputable authorities and sources" are really those with whom you agree.

The Second clearly states the right to keep and bear arms is of the people. The Fed specifically has powers regarding the militia and specifically draws on the larger RKBA held by the people. The argument for "well regulated militia" is a fed and state power, affecting the people only in that they are to report when called bearing a suitable weapon; ie, don't show up with a .410 shotgun.

This is the U.S., not England.

eleanors: This is the U.S., not England.

You're sharp today, yet inept at the same time; .. scalia cited the english 'have arms' decree as being an individual right to self defense, that's the rub, for scalia misinterpreted the english bill of rights & misapplied it to the 2ndA. The english refute what scalia said, & claim their english 'have arms' decree conferred an individual right to belong to a militia, as I wrote previously.

the english:.. contrary to discredited scholarship {joyce malcolm} upon which Heller [decision] relied, the right to “have arms” embodied in the English Declaration of Rights did not intend to protect an individual’s right to possess, own, or use arms for private purposes such as to defend a home against burglars (what, in modern times, we mean when we use the term “self-defense”). Rather, it referred to a right to possess arms in defense of the realm.
.. The Supreme Court correctly found that the English right to “have arms” was an expression of the same right that has “long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment.”
.. Where the Court erred was by interpreting the quoted terms in a manner divorced from their historical context, reading “individual” to mean “private,” “defence” to mean “defense against harm by private individuals acting for private purposes” and equating “self-preservation” with the modern usage of the term “self-defense.” In doing so, the Court relied heavily on the scholarship of Joyce Lee Malcolm. The overwhelming consensus among leading English historians, however, is that Malcolm’s work is flawed on this point.
.. The origins of [2ndA] in the English right to “have arms” demonstrate that this right of self-preservation/self-defense gives individuals the right to collectively defend their public interests against organized assault or tyranny.. .. Moreover, the right of “self-preservation” was to be exercised not by individuals acting privately or independently, but as a militia organized by their elected representatives, whether Parliament, the Boston Town Council, or otherwise...Contrary to Malcolm’s view, the “have arms” provision was the result of a political dispute over whether ultimate control over the militia..
.. Amici Curiae are scholars and professional historians whose collective expertise covers the following areas: the history of Stuart England, the Restoration, the 1689 Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, the Early Republic, American legal history, American Constitutional history, and Anglo-American history. Each has earned one or more advanced degrees in history, political science and/or law. The depth of knowledge they bring to the Court’s inquiry..
I. THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD REEXAMINE PRIOR FINDINGS IN LIGHT OF SOUNDER SCHOLARSHIP WHEN INTERPRETING RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION http://www.oyez.org/sites/default/files/cases/briefs/pdf/brief__08-1521__22.pdf

Their cognitive dissonance drives them right over a cliff when it comes to PBO...

Reminds me that mr DR want's me to eat more fiber. Thanks for the health reminder.

beevul: This {2ndA} is exactly the same thing as saying "because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Textually, those two phrases have exactly the same meaning.

I don't know what you think you proved, but it certainly wasn't an individual rkba disconnected from militia. Actually you provide a sophomoric argument, is all.
Scalia also cited Wm Rawle (View of Constitution, 1825): (Scalia): In 1825, Wm Rawle, a prominent lawyer who had been a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly that ratified the Bill of Rights.. analyzed {2ndA} as follows:“The first [principle] is a declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent….“The corollary, from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Scalia cited Wm Rawle but evidently Scalia didn't know the proper definition of what a 'corollary' is. Webster, 1828: Corollary n. 1. A conclusion or consequence drawn from premises, or from what is advanced or demonstrated. If it is demonstrated that a triangle which has equal sides, has also equal angles, it follows as a corollary that a triangle which has three equal sides, has its three angles equal.. A corollary is an inference from a preceding proposition... 2. A surplus.

A corollary is a principle derived from a higher rule or law, it is something which logically follows from something coming before it. Rawle clearly contended, & Scalia cited him the very phrases, that the individual rkba clause was a COROLLARY to the militia clause. Thus the rkba was derived from the higher law, the need for a well regulated militia. It would be a ludicrous corollary to contend an individual rkba disconnected from militia service was derived from the need for a well regulated militia, that doesn't logically follow. Then scalia goes on to rule the rkba clause was the controlling clause, thus contradicting Rawle by contending a corollary can control the proposition it was derived from!!!

beevul: Second and more importantly - and this inconvenient bit of fact destroys your entire premise - the bill of rights in which amendment 2 is contained, was at the time of its writing a "government shall not" document.. - each specifying what government is forbidden from doing..

Duh, exactly what I wrote prior to you posting; I contended that the bor was a limitation on the congress. It was eleanors who didn't recognize this, & I pointed it out. So my 'entire premise' hasn't been destroyed, you've just proven yourself rather inept today at comprehension.. oh I see your problem, you posted monday morning, & missed my ~10pm sunday post to eleanors further down: ..the amendments in US bill of rights are also limitations on the powers of congress. And the 'right' in the 2nd amendment indeed granted an INDIVIDUAL the right to belong to a well reg'd militia..

beevul: So basically, you got nothing. .. No that would be you. An apology & retraction in order from you.

...is a right to secure a militia more fundamental than a right to secure one's own survival?

discntnt: In what world......is a right to secure a militia more fundamental than a right to secure one's own survival?

In eastern north america in the late 18th century, in the constitutional sense. The right to personal self defense didn't hinge upon the 2ndA, & a constitutional unfettered RKBA would've been deemed a prelude to civilian mayhem rather than an individual 'right', by almost all the founding fathers & citizens. The right to bear arms in a militia was what protected the fledgling country at it's outset, from both itself & foreign intruders.

I wrote: ".. rkba was derived from the higher law, the need for a well regulated militia."
discntnt: You have this exactly reversed... Looking to justify individual rights from what you imagine to be a "group right" is like believing groups created individuals. It is individuals that created groups.

I really couldn't care less that you think 'I' have it reversed, for you are not challenging 'me' above, but wm rawle & justice scalia. THEY are the ones who said the individual rkba clause was a corollary to the wrm clause, THEY are the ones who contended rkba was derived from a higher law (wrm) by claiming the individual rkba a corollary. SCALIA is the one who contradicted himself by claiming the individual rkba clause was controlling, thus saying a corollary controls the proposition it was derived from. So go take it up with scalia.

(Scalia, in heller 2008): In 1825, Wm Rawle, a prominent lawyer who had been a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly that ratified the Bill of Rights.. analyzed {2ndA} as follows:“The first is a declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent….“The corollary, from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
.. evidently Scalia didn't know the proper definition of 'corollary'. Webster, 1828: Corollary n. 1. A conclusion or consequence drawn from premises, or from what is advanced or demonstrated. If it is demonstrated that a triangle which has equal sides, has also equal angles, it follows as a corollary that a triangle which has three equal sides, has its three angles equal.. A corollary is an inference from a preceding proposition... 2. A surplus.

.. A corollary is a principle derived from a higher rule or law, it is something which logically follows from something coming before it. Rawle clearly contended, & Scalia cited him the very phrases, that the individual rkba clause was a COROLLARY to the militia clause. If you're going to use the word at least know what it means. It would be a ludicrous corollary to contend an individual rkba disconnected from militia service, was derived from the need for a well regulated militia, that doesn't logically follow.
Then scalia goes on to rule the rkba clause was the controlling clause, thus contradicting Rawle by contending a corollary can control the proposition it was derived from!!!

My question: "In what world......is a right to secure a militia more fundamental than a right to secure one's own survival?"
JTO's answer: "In eastern north america in the late 18th century, in the constitutional sense."

I did not ask about the Constitution. I asked in essence what is more fundamental of a concern: securing a militia or personal survival?

I didn't say it did and if it isn't plain enough for you, I say explicitly now that the RKBA is part of a valid, logically planned and executed self-defense strategy. It is not based upon 2A acknowledgement and exists outside of the 2A and, for that matter, outside of any government or law. The inherent and "unalienable Right" to life is the source of the right to self-defense and the use of any tool efficacious for its exercise including a firearm.

Amendment 2 specifies what government may not do.

Not just congress.

Amendment 1 specifies congress.

Amendment 2 does not.

With me so far?

Amendment 2 says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

It does NOT say, that ONLY in the case of militia members does this apply.

It says with no qualifiers, what right belongs to the people, what government may not do to that right, and spells out why government may not do that.

Its just that simple, and no amount of word salad, creative interpretation, distraction diversion or dishonesty can change that.


Beyond that, the second amendment grants no rights. It protects protects rights which belong, as the amendment states, to the people, not just the militia.

To think that amendment 2 grants the right to belong to the militia, something that congress was granted power to create and call forth previous to the writing of the bill of rights...is ignorant at best, starting with "grants a right"...

"I don't know what you think you proved, but it certainly wasn't an individual rkba disconnected from militia. Actually you provide a sophomoric argument, is all."

I don't need to "prove" anything. An individual right "connected" with militia service has never been proven, or prevailing law in America. You think amendments "grant" rights, but you dare apply the word "sophomoric" to the words of others?

Individual rights is the law of the land. Deal with it. That or Send the President an E-mail telling him hes wrong too.

I need to go reread that part of the constitution.

beevul: Amendment 2 says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

You write ambiguously; adding 'individual' prior to 'right' is what you're trying to say, & that's the scalia spin, subverted from the previously accepted historical interpretation for 200+ years. It's fractured reasoning from scalia.

beevul: It does NOT say, that ONLY in the case of militia members does this apply.

Well benjamin oliver (cited by scalia) did: Benjamin Oliver, Right of an American Citizen, 1832: "The provision of the constitution, declaring the right of the people to keep and bear arms, &c. was probably intended to apply to the right of the people to bear arms for such (militia-related) purposes only, and not to prevent congress or the legislatures of the different states from enacting laws to prevent the citizens from always going armed. A different construction however has been given to it."

beevul: It says with no qualifiers, what right belongs to the people, what government may not do to that right, and spells out why government may not do that. Beyond that, {2ndA} grants no rights. It protects protects rights which belong, as the amendment states, to the people, not just the militia.

Sit back beevul, & behold the wonder of modern day information dissemination:
1 word net: bill of rights: statement of fundamental rights and privileges (esp first 10 amdmts to Constitution)
2 AmerHeritage: bill of rights: formal summary of rights and liberties essential to a people or group of people.
Bill of Rights first ten amendments to the US. Constitution, 1791 to protect certain rights of citizens. Bill of Rights A declaration of certain rights of subjects, enacted by the English Parliament in 1689.
3 web,1828: a list of rights; a paper containing a declaration of rights..
4 WmRawle, View of Const, 1825: Of the amendments already adopted, the eight first in order fall within the class of restrictions on the legislative power, some of which would have been implied, some are original, and all are highly valuable.. Remedies will always be found while the protection of individual rights and the reasonable safeguards of society itself form parts of the principles of our government.http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.htm

The US bill of rights confers both individual rights as well as limitations on congress, the rub is that the individual right in 2ndA pertains to an individual right (aka duty then) to belong to well reg'd militia.

beevul: To think that amendment 2 grants the right to belong to the militia, something that congress was granted power to create and call forth previous to the writing of the bill of rights...is ignorant at best, starting with "grants a right"

That is exactly what the british contend their 1689bor does, & scalia then contends in heller that 2ndA derived from english bor1689; 2ndA written 1791 was followed ~6 months later by the 1792 Militia Act, which described how american white males were to exercise their right to bear arms, if/when congress/pres wanted.

beevul: .. no amount of word salad, creative interpretation, distraction diversion or dishonesty can change that.. With me so far?

When used as a counter to word phlegm, word salad has to suffice, & I'm eons ahead of where you'll ever be.

"This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment."...
"It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia. To be sure, it was an individual right not available to the whole population, given that it was restricted to Protestants, and like all written English rights it was held only against the Crown, not Parliament."

"something succeeded or replaced by something else"

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

dscntnt: The point has been made numerous times that the BoR "confers" nothing. The BoR .. was passed by popular demand of the individual states to protect preexisting human rights. The BoR operates as a restriction on government to the benefit of individuals.

Scalia in heller: The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to {kba}..

This is semantics then, for a bill of rights, by definition, generally lists individual rights, & whether the US bor confers rights or protects existing rights, it's moot semantics for this argument between individual interp vs militia.

dscntnt:Saying that the English BoR of 1689 is a predecessor of the US BoR does not imbue into a successor the same meanings intended for and later ascribed to that predecessor.

Unless scalia explicitly says it does: Scalia, heller: "This {english 1689 'have arms'} right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our 2nd Amendment."... "It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia. To be sure, it was an individual right not available to the whole population, given that it was restricted to Protestants, and.. was held only against the Crown, not Parliament."

The British Consortium of Scholars disagreed with scalia: The Supreme Court correctly found that the English right to “have arms” was an expression of the same right that has “long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment.”
Where the Court erred was by interpreting the quoted terms in a manner divorced from their historical context, reading “individual” to mean “private,” “defence” to mean “defense against harm by private individuals acting for private purposes” and equating “self-preservation” with the modern usage of the term “self-defense.” In doing so, the Court relied heavily on the scholarship of Joyce Lee Malcolm. The overwhelming consensus among leading English historians, however, is that Malcolm’s work is flawed on this point.
.. The origins of the 2nd Amendment in the English right to “have arms” demonstrate that this right of self-preservation/self-defense gives individuals the right to collectively defend their public interests against organized assault or tyranny..
.. Moreover, the right of “self-preservation” was to be exercised not by individuals acting privately or independently, but as a militia organized by their elected representatives, whether Parliament, the Boston Town Council, or otherwise.
.. the “self” referred to by these speakers was the public “self”{collectively}.. Thus, the word “people” was also frequently used interchangeably with “Parliament"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
dscntnt: A militia is, as well as I can discern, is a group formed to affect the protection of a its members or a super set of them and to prepare for such eventual protection.

Haha, thanks for demonstrating what a joke the unorganized militia is! Unless you're 17 or younger, you dscntnt don't know what a militia is, yet you've been part of an american militia since you were 17 yrs old!

...you'll see the light. The RKBA is protected by the 2A. You are fixed on arguing with Scalia about the SCOTUS decision/opinion in Heller. I did not start with Heller. My point has been to express the fundamental idea that of self-defense is implied by a right to life. If you accept the right to self-defense, the RKBA is just using a tool to do the work to affect one's self-defense.

You have repeatedly made a case against the Heller decision. While the points you bring up may be issues with Heller, they don't change my opinion because my opinion isn't based on Heller. The fact that my opinion of an individual RKBA agrees with Heller is incidental.

I think it best to end our discussion since neither of us is addressing the propositions of the other. Have a nice day.

That one and a couple of his friends are just flame baiting!! I'll give JTO some credit -- at least he tries to make an argument, in his own way. I still give him the . I'm being careful now since my TP is showing and that isn't Charmin!!

...due to JTO's assertion that our rights to firearms are limited to use by a militia. Among the many disconnects in that regard are those who may find themselves in remote areas. I don't accept that there is no RKBA for a lone individual in bear country. Police, rangers and sheriffs may be many minutes to hours away. There are times and places in some cities that the same is true.

While an exemption would excuse someone from service, it would not bar their service. It may be of interest to find if some individuals of the period were conspicuously missing from any militia roles were also required to surrender their firearms.

JTO's reasoning is flawed and continuously sidesteps any aspects of the essence of simple concepts of survival and protection of self or loved ones.

If an ostrich buried its head that deeply, he'd be in China.

discntnt: ..due to JTO's assertion that our rights to firearms are limited to use by a militia. Among the many disconnects in that regard are those who may find themselves in remote areas. I don't accept that there is no RKBA for a lone individual in bear country. Police, rangers and sheriffs may be many minutes to hours away.

This is a misrepresentation of what I've said & contended; the 2nd amendment written in 1791 was written constitutionally as a militia based right (I think jmg agrees with this), & justice joseph story's quote supports that, as does benjamin olivers, & william rawle.
..The 2ndAmendment was written to protect rkba for american well regulated militias, based upon the english 1689 'have arms' decree. There are no well regulated citizens militias any longer, the 2ndA is obsolete antiquated & protects us from nothing whatsoever which couldn't be protected against without it. As it exists today the 2ndA is an enabler of gundeath & guncrime, & on the national stage has become a carnival atmosphere of immature & bigoted far rightwing ideology.
.. Anyone living in 'bear country' or remote areas, could renounce their 2ndA rights at any time, & still go out with a gun & defend themselves & their property - the 2ndA would really have nothing to do with it today. The argument I made was original intent of james madison in 1791.

It may be of interest to find if some individuals of the period were conspicuously missing from any militia roles were also required to surrender their firearms.

Near 15,000 americans did not show up for militia duty in the war of 1812 (about 400,000 did report); they were generally known postwar, but early attempts to prosecute were dropped & some form of amnesty, or indifference, ensued, as being in violation of 1792 militia act. You should rather ask if those 15,000 subsequently deserved an individual rkba by the 2nd amendment, & whether the founding fathers intended it to be that way.

JTO's reasoning is flawed and continuously sidesteps any aspects of the essence of simple concepts of survival and protection of self or loved ones.

Discntnt's reasoning is specious & immersed in 2ndAmendment Mythology, following rightwing ideology very closely. She insinuates & evidently believes there is some overarching link between the 2ndA & the right to self defense, which really conflates two separate concepts which are only tangentially related.

If an ostrich buried its head that deeply, he'd be in China

Impossible ad hominem, but if an ostrich cited joseph story for individual rkba support, it'd be wallowing in quicksand.

...I wasn't talking to you. Sorry

Jimmy said: Anyone living in 'bear country' or remote areas, could renounce their 2ndA rights at any time, & still go out with a gun & defend themselves & their property - the 2ndA would really have nothing to do with it today. The argument I made was original intent of james madison in 1791.


Or those living in bear country could go out and hunt with the same rifle they would also bring when called to service. The Miller court cited the VA militia act in which the militia west of the Blue Ridge could "keep" a rifle (as opposed to a musket which others in the VA militia were required to keep) for militia duty, the same rifle those persons west of the blue ridge would undoubtedly hunt with.

The Miller court cited the VA militia act and others to support its conclusion that when called for duty, the men arrived bearing arms in common use at the time.

"I'm eons ahead of where you'll ever be."

Which is why you copy things I've said, and past them in your replies in an order in which I did not say them - misquoting me.

If that's what you characterize as "eons ahead", then so be it.

Whatever helps you sleep at night...

You have to be able to preserve your life before you can utilize any others. The 2A is a basic right to life amendment, even without the 2A people have the individual right to protect themselves and with that you would come full circle back to the individual right to own firearms. What type of person would want to deprive someone of the ability to defend themselves, and why?

clear notions of the justifiable use of force in defense of self (and often others).

It was never expected that the people should surrender their right to self defense.

Yates