in the meantime - we don't need to make legal arguments without the 2A. The Constitution is all we need.

The 2A is interpreted as conveying an individual right and that all I care about.

but the 2nd has nothing to do with that. This is not fantasy or hypothetical.
If I was as concerned about this as you seem to be, I would want a more secure foothold than you have.
It has been interpreted as conveying, etc . . . argument from authority.

with Supreme Court precedence and case law behind it - which the 2A is. No law maker in the country at any level can defy it. You need to read Heller and McDonald - the 2A has never been safer.

All you have to do is look at some of the cases..

US v Cruikshank

"This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.


Presser v Illinois

"the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms"


It's almost as though you think the constitution 'grants' rights. It doesn't.

See the preamble to the bill of rights for clarification-

[div class='excerpt']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.

It's a 'the government can not' document, not a 'the people can'.

No, protecting the ability to raise a well-regulated militia was why the right was protected, but that has no bearing on the right itself.

If I said, "I'm out of soda, I'm going to the store."- would you assume that stores only sell soda?

no serious person thinks that rights are granted. That's stupid.
I was talking about the reliance of some on the 2nd amendment when speaking of gun rights.
I think that I have the right to defend myself. This is based on the human condition-I cannot point to the Constitution for any instruction on this.
I am wondering how to argue this stuff in a modern fashion without falling back on those few words.
My purpose was not for others to get defensive and put words in my mouth. The problem is-MANY do rely on the 2nd to back this up.

The right is not limited to the reason the second was added.

The second amendment is the legal protection of the right- and as such is the cornerstone of any legal case surrounding the issue.

It seems to weaken the amendment. Why even add that? Why muddy the waters?
A person CAN look at it and feel that it allows room for infringement. It is wholly unclear.

That's why I and other posters are confused by your post. It's not a qualifier, it's not a limit. It was the reason.

Like I said originally, "I'm out of soda, I'm going to the store." doesn't mean that stores only sell soda.

A reasonable person COULD think-"They give the reason for it to be necessary for people to have guns. This reason now does not apply. This amendment is no longer legitimate." Or something like that.
I would like something more clear. It is not clear-cut. If that was the reason-it is not a good one now. Granted, it does not say that if that reason was to become meaningless, the protection would cease. Why the reason at all?

Even if the second amendment had never been passed, the right would still exist, as an unenumerated right via the ninth, applicable to the states via the fourteenth.



re 'why the reason', that was a fairly common convention at the time. It's fallen out of favor in English these days. For example, see Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments.." That statement doesn't limit speech, either.

Here is a sensible reason to give for preserving the right.

I have the right, as a person, to defend myself and my family from harm.

I just feel that falling back on the 2A does not work.

In all honesty, also, I wanted to see some of the arguments from those who feel we might need to rise up, armed, against the government. I wanted to see if there was a case to be made.

any law will be referenced to the 2A to see if it is constitutional.

You can't escape the Bill of Rights - it stands at the pinnacle of our legal system. Short of another constitutional amendment, there is nothing that can possibly protect your right to own guns or self defense more than the 2A.

As for the question about rising up against the government - the founders had a well earned fear of government monopolizing the instruments of power and tyrannizing the citizens. It was important to them that government did not have a monopoly on power - that the citizens could defend their civil liberties from a tyrannical government. While I am not concerned about that in America now, it is important to note how many American gun control laws are rooted in attempts to disarm minority groups that are perceived as a threat - southern gun control aimed at former slaves, the Sullivan Act aimed at Italian "mobsters" and Mulford Act which was signed after the Black Panthers dared to carry weapons in public.

It is nice to know that you don't worry about that now, though. I certainly understand why they were wary of government power at the time.

once you give anything to the government you never get it back.

you don't think our government can turn against the people?

and if it truly did, our pea-shooters would not do much. Self-defense is an OK reason for guns.

you don't think a rebellion would acquire weapons?

Worries about forced internments in concentration camps and armed revolution were rampant.

If you can diagram the sentance to make it refer only to the militia, please do so. It would be... unprecedented.

None of the amendments grant any rights, they all restrict or limit the governments ability to infringe on natural, pre-existing rights.

I can legitimately interpret the 2A to mean that the government can't infringe these rights because of the need for a militia. Now, there is no need for one at all. Since the qualifier has been rendered irrelevant, now they are free, constitutionally, to infringe these rights.
I want something a little more sensible-like that we have the right to bear arms in the defense of the self.

militia?

how do you define militia-serious question, since I can't answer w/o it.

but you have made a point that having a militia now is pointless because we have a standing army and/or there is no reason to throw off a govt now a days. We are always in danger of a government turning on its people and must be ever vigilant.

If I misunderstood you I apologize.

think they can openly carry a loaded weapon around along with as many ammo clips as they can stuff in their pants? How did we get to where gunners shoot their asses off in a theater or shoot their dicks off while playing with the gun in their pants or where they shoot their selves in the head while watching cops and robbers on TV?

How did we get to the place were a couple of "deliverance" types with hog legs strapped to their waist come into the restaurant while you are waiting your turn to be seated?

How, because of the NRA and ALEC and right wing extremism politics. No other group of Dems would support ALEC which writes legislation to remove the power of unions to fight against corporatism and legislation to strip people of their right to vote. No other group of Dems would support the NRA's removal of any attempt to keep people safe from the gun lobby's no hold barred stance on firearms in our society.

No other Dem group would support the addition to the Supreme Court the right wing fanatical judges we got under the Bush admin.

No other Dem group but our very own gun nut lobby.

The 2nd Amendment is relevant today because of right wing extremism which is supported by Dems with guns!

A society saturated to the hilt with guns-everyone(mostly) has them. The good guys, the bad guys, etc. I would like it to be different, but this is the reality we live in.
IF I lived in a high-crime area, I might be tempted to carry.
To be honest, in general, I have found carriers(in my area) to be strange, paranoid, and mostly Republican. I do not want some dude next to me carrying a gun-I just don't. I think that fucknut who carried the (was it an) AR-15 in public openly is probably an attention whore, a nutjob, or just an asshole. Probably just an asshole.
But-I can't judge a right by the people who are the most visible. I may not like it, but that does not mean I have the right to legislate based on my opinion.

meaning other than what it means to you? Or is it a rational thought with substance and supported by others of the same opinion?

You have every right to your opinion and every right to get involve in our legislative process!

If you feel strongly about your opinion fight for it!

We are being bullied by the gun lobby in Congress, in our communities and right here on our discussion boards.

Stand up to them!

I'm sure you notice by now that the only thing they can say to you is to insult you. So what? Screw them and their insults. Sticks and stones and all that.

The more guns there are in our communities the more gun violence there will be. Just before some gunner shoots some innocent person they were a law abiding citizen.

Stand up them and to hell with this gunner propaganda!


Gunners are not some patriot group fighting for Constitutional rights! They are a bunch of people with a fetish prostituting the Constitution for their own selfish interest.

I am a screen name on a discussion board, as are they.
Some of the regular "gunners" here are actually quite civil and give reasoned arguments. I may not always agree, but so what?

That's the thing, though--opinions. Maybe we define the term differently.

I would not say that it is my opinion that evolution is true. I would say that my opinion is that liver and onions is disgusting. I do not want to ban liver and onions.

If there were good data to suggest that I am much unsafer being surrounded by carriers, then that would be something. We could then discuss it and decide at what point a right should be limited if it affects others to whatever degree. But there is not the data.
I suspect, that there is a bit of a difference, but a bit is not enough.
I suspect that these guys can go around feeling safe with their guns and not really make me less or more safe. I think it does not really matter.
I may think that there is a large difference between how I think and how they do--but unless my life is affected, I have no real right to limit others' rights.
There's a lot of shit I don't like-but I recognize it as my opinion.

right to make decisions for yourself.

But there is a history of gun violence in this country. It can't be denied.

This argument that we need the science of statistics on our side before we can have a valid opinion is bull shit. As it is often said, statistics can prove anything. I use to tutor statistics in college. I have rarely seen anyone who uses statistics to prove a point who understands statistics. Statistics is used as a battering ram by gunners. Either they have some statistic to prove their point or they demand that you provide a statistic that they accept (which never happens).

Fuck gunner statistics! It is a useless game the play.

If you want to change minds you need numbers. Anecdotes don't cut it. A perception of the vastness of gun violence does not work.
If I saw CREDIBLE stats, not spun or manipulated, suggesting that we would be substantially safer with law x or y, I would be open to change my mind.
It is right to demand evidence. It is absolutely necessary in all cases to do so.

That's pure BS, those stats are neutral, not, as you say, gunner stats. Most of the firearm violence is drug related, gang on gang and confined to the big citys, notice I say most, not all.
The huge majority of guns are owned by lawful citizens and are never used in crimes, that's a fact.

you are the only on throwing names and insults. You would do much better if you knock off the the name calling like gun nuts.
And as far as more guns in the communities, that is provably untrue, firearms ownership has gone up while violent crime, including firearm crimes, has dropped, crime hasn't dropped because of more firearms, the reasons are many, but more guns certainly doesn't equal more shootings or crime.

It's people like you who make DU suck, try being a little bit more civil please.

But then you would still call me out.
It is useless to try and work with them. I don't want more guns on our society. I don't buy gunner bull shit.

I am in the majority. I won't burn incense to their gods!

If you were, then there would be a slew of new gun control laws passed, how many have passed in the last 10 years? Instead, more states have liberalized their gun laws while violent crime continues to decline, those are the facts no matter how much you might wish it were not so.

a bunch of noise. As far as laws, there is hardly any lobby for people who don't want more guns. Gunners have the NRA and ALEC and a right wing Supreme Court.

Our legislators are bullied by the gun lobby with threats of losing an election. It is tea party tactics which gunners of both parties think is quite ok.

What is going to change things is more gun deaths. There will be a point where people will refuse to remain silent. They will refuse to be bullied by the gun lobby.

Maybe it will be today, maybe next week but as sure as the sun comes up there will be another mass shooting. It will happen before the Nov election and the gunners will not shed a tear. The population will ask, "what can be done." Maybe again we will say nothing can be done but some day we won't be saying that.

And you can be sure of this. I don't give a shit what the gunners on this board think of me!

The gun control org. in the country can't even come close to matching the membership of the NRA, the Brady Org. has a total of 23,000 members and to raise money, have had to sell their mailing list, the VPC is just about kaput, the Million Mom March is down to a few thousand Mom March with their leader in prison for shooting a someone.

If gun control were so popular, then why is appox. 1/2 of the Congress A rated by the NRA? You can't even get Pres. Obama on board with new gun control laws, you know why? Because he is a smart and shrewd politician who knows that gun control is a losing issue with the general population.

You, my friend, are on the losing side of the gun control issue.
Now, I'm not in favor of unrestricted access to firearms, I, like Pres. Obama, think that we need to do better enforcement of the laws already out there, better reporting by the states to NICS of prohibited persons, open up NICS to private sellers to check if the buyer is a prohibited person.

I can tell by the way you address this group that you don't care what pro gun people think of you, well, all I can say is that I won't stoop to your level.
I try to stay civil and if I'm insulted enough times, then I refuse to engage the person.

Fortunately we don't seem to have any of those here on D.U.

The sky... it does not fall.

Last edited Sat Sep 8, 2012, 12:35 PM - Edit history (2)

For starters, open carry has been the norm for most areas for centuries...

wasn't and still isn't customary, but legal never the less.

Many gun owners are also union member and Democrats. None of this has anything to do with ALEC or unions, so your rant is pointless.

Where we're objectively safer than we have been in decades?

I can't say for certain but I'm ok with it.

And paid retail.

DanTex said there is no classism or anti rural bigotry in the gun control movement.

Look upthread to some fairly reasonable responses.

"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

It is equally anachronistic, but there it is. The problem with the 2A is that it is being used to prevent reasonable regulation of weapons completely outside of its original intent.

and why are current laws unreasonable? Heller allows for reasonable regulation.

they deregulate. Sorry, but this discussion goes nowhere. There is no regulation I can propose that the gungeoneers will find reasonable. You know that. I know that. Won't play.

and no I am not for deregulation in most areas. Somethings I would make simple changes. Can you show one example of me saying that we should repeal any current federal law, other than the one Warren Harding signed? Not that one makes a difference either way. When Nixon changed the Post Office from a cabinet position to a state corporation, it made the law moot.

are theater and served no useful purpose and in some cases counter productive to absurd like California's 1989 law. For example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117269932
technical regulations should be written by people who actually know what they are talking about. We do with airplanes, we should do the same with guns.
The only positive thing the 1994 AWB did was get Bernie Sanders elected, with NRA support, unseating some Republican who voted for it.

Thanks for playing 'lets do a run-around'.

It is applying basic logic and knowledge on the subject matter. Propose something that is logical and well thought out, we'll talk about it. Problem is too many gun control advocates base their information on poorly written blog posts that the writer didn't bother to verify any of what he was regurgitating. The AWB banned further importation and manufacture of rifles with a couple of cosmetic features. These were guns very rarely used in crime or gang violence.

"James Madison said:

"In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

BONUS:
Freud argued that when men gave up the primal drive to protect ourselves, our families and our communities – and that power was transferred to standing armies – it disempowered us and made us weak psychologically.

Freud worked in the theoretical-not an empiricist.

Anyway, I will not do the obvious and jump to the conclusion that you disagree with our having a standing army.
Your statement appears to say that armies do ill when controlled by the Executive. True-our forces have committed unmentionable atrocities, much like others'.

Now, though, it would be silly to think that an armed populace could defend the country on the world stage.

We all still value protecting ourselves and our families. We are unburdened and freed by our standing army. I don't have to fret and worry that my town will be invaded by crusading hordes. I am glad.

The fact that there's never been a sucessful invasion of the US.

Keep in mind, during WWII England was begging US citizens to send them our personal firearms.

> And you can thank the 2A for your safe home, town, country.

That statement takes gun-religion to a new high! Congrats on your delusion.

Do you have anything to support your claims?

> He made a point and backed it up with a historical reference

That's a historical reference???

OK, I'll back up mine with a "historical reference" of the same level of relevance of his.

The proof of my post is that man evolved from lower primates.

I don't follow this stuff as closely as some do.

After seeing the destruction during WWI the British subjects were disarmed by their government. During the Blitz in WWII the Brits were worried about a German invasion so they sent out a cry for help to American gun owners. American citizens sent them ships full of privately owned firearms to help them defend themselves in the event of an invasion. After the war the British government had almost all the weapons promptly destroyed instead of returning them. That is why, should the same thing happen again, I will refuse to send them arms. They allowed themselves to be disarmed and should suffer the consequences as a warning to others. They made their bed, let them lay in it.

money can buy and that technology makes possible.

And remember, that threat to freedom could be foreign or domestic.

Also, you might want to take a look at who the militia is per us code, pay particular attention to the unorganized militia part.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

SCOTUS has ruled multiple times that the police exist to protect society at large. The police are not required to protect individuals, unless said individual are in police custody. Therefore your personal safety is ultimately your responsibility.

The best tool for protecting yourself is a gun, in most cases a handgun. Since handguns are smaller than long guns, the handgun is more easily secured, and easily maneuvered in the confines of the average home or apartment. The handgun is less powerful than a long gun, thus if you miss with a handgun the round will not over-penetrate walls and possibly harm another. Since the handgun is smaller is capable of being carried concealed without attracting attention of criminals.

Some of the best cases from SCOTUS on this issue are:
[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia|
Warren v. District of Columbia]
[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County|
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services ]

Castle Rock v. Gonzales

I can't believe "sensibleness" is an actual word!

we need more of this in this group, instead of the usual name calling and insults.
My hat is off to you sir.

only a few are insulting dicks--I try not to be one.
Off-topic--do you know the progress re: 2 moderators here? Just wondering.

you might want to PM Krispos and ask him, I think you would make a really good co-host if you want the job.

Can't says I blame you.

eventually find its way to the constitution.

The Second Amendment may be irrelevant now. In three months, perhaps less so. I'm sure you're aware that there is a technocrat fascist running for office of president. If he wins, Pullman strikes and the battle of Blair mountain will look like a walk in the park before it's over.

The 1% wont need troops in uniform to oppress people. They are creating an aristocracy with the help of about half the voting public.

"You can always hire one half of the poor to kill the other half."
Jay Gould 19th century robber baron.

Google "Pinkerton" sometime. The road to all out insurrection is a long one, and there is a lot of state approved or sponsored lawlessness and thuggery along the way.

Bullies don't want a fight. They want an easy (cheap) victory. Let them know you'll do whatever it takes and they back down.

Really?

Is this the part where I'm supposed to go "You know what? You're right! who needs the 2nd amendment? The grabbers will totally respect my right to self defense one it's done away with!"?

I don't think you have even the slightest clue what the purpose of the second amendment is for.

Full of content!

If you have something to contribute, please do.

.. the 2nd Amendment is there so NRA executives can make lots of money, and they can shove right-wing policies down America's throat, and so gun makers can sell product.

why do you ignore them?

It is their votes the politicians fear - not the NRA. If the public support gun control it would not matter one iota what the NRA had to say. Politicians care about one thing and that is votes.

a link to the source of this information.

And where, exactly, did you read that?

All it is is a political indulgence of a particular personal kink.

And folks who are kinky that way vote for politicians who indulge them.

There is no constitutional justification for it whatsoever. It actual threatens all of our genuine rights.

that they cannot defend themselves with a gun against a criminal who has one?

If somehow, there were no criminals with guns, I might support more stringent controls. But it ain't so.

It's just a death spiral.

Then, gradually, begin to treat guns and ammo like child pornography.

Turn public policy into a crusade against it.

to use karate or cans of beans?

You want to turn tens of millions of American citizens into armed felons? Brilliant plan.

That our constitutional rights are "indulgences". Interesting

Really?
Then why is it in the BoR?

I think that the Founding Fathers wouldn't Share your interpretation, matter of fact, they seemed to be pretty United in their thinking.

And was dressed up as a national defense argument before we had a standing army.

It was tested by the American Civil War, and found to be moot.

There is no right of access to guns and ammo in the same way as there is no right of armed rebellion.

There is most certainly a right to armed rebellion to throw off a tyrannical govt.

I saw..

...by due process.

maybe you are using the wrong term.
A group of judges interpreted it and stated that the right is unconnected to militia service. I get that.
It says what we say it says.
That does not make it go away. It does legally, now, I guess-which, granted, was what I was referring to.
It is not stupid to ask the question. Not a straw-man.
Can this be discussed without calling people stupid?

I did not read the entire decision. I know the vote was close. I guess this is one issue we all have with the system-one vote another way and the Bill of Rights says something else. It seems a bit arbitrary, but this is the system we have and I can't pretend to have an infinitely better system to suggest to interpret it-certainly not a popular vote.
I think that does bother me.
I would like it to not be necessary to make decisions this way. I would like, in my pretend world, to make decisions purely on what is right or wrong for people. For me, it has much more meaning and is more defensible than pointing to a 5-4 decision by the Supreme court. A different president, a different appointee, a different result. It kind of stinks and seems too random.
I am not even saying I disagree with that decision and these feelings go beyond that decision and this topic.
I did ask for a better legal argument, though-and even though I don't like how this one comes about, it is what we've got. Reality and all.
Anyway-I think of a straw-man as an argument based on the intentional misrepresentation of another's view on the subject. To quibble a bit-this is only a straw-man if that person does not take that position. But many do. I guess it is bound by who is in on the discussion.
If represented your argument in that way, it would be a straw-man. But for someone else, it might not be.

have a private militia separate from the govt and it will be just as valid.

as a counter force to an oppressive standing army. It was part of the debate between federalists and anti-federalists.

However the current USSC, with decisions in 2008 and 2010, has abandoned any collectivist interpretation and reduced the meaning to one of a simple individual right to possess some subset of "arms", divorced from any connection to their utility to anachronistic local militias. They have tossed that pesky phrase entirely. This is a rather substantial re-interpretation of the original amendment, which is fine, except when the re-interpreters also claim that interpretation is forbidden and original intent is all there is. Hypocrisy is the hallmark of the Rogers Court.

it was argued in US v Miller, but the SCOTUS did not rule that way. The 2010 decision really was not a 2A case, it was a 14A to incorporate the second against the states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

They dismiss and discard this section of miller:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Which clearly demonstrates that at the time of that decision the collectivist interpretation was considered valid. The 2A only guaranteed, in 1938, a right to bear arms that were relevant to a well regulated militia.

Times have changed. Of course those who made that change did so while claiming, quite hypocritically, to be original intent strict constructionists. The debate during the convention was all about local militias and federal standing armies.

both sides claim Miller as a victory as their side. One problem was that Miller's council was not there. The only thing your quote says is that there was no evidence shown to the court that such a shotgun had any military value, not a protected weapon. In other words, if it were an unregistered BAR or Thompson SMG, the decision may have been different.

They should be the only people allowed to carry.

Domestic violence would be reduced in a hurry.

By the lies and NRA Talking Points that the DU Gun Lobby trots out to defend their Precious. Don't worry about the volume, they act as a "hive mind".

Have pity on these guys. They would starve if they didn't have their object of worship, since they would be too scared to go to the supermarket. Life is very scary for them.

is a self fulfilling prophecy. They are in fact slowly creating a world where it will become necessary for all of us to go everywhere armed to the teeth because of the increasing likelihood that some armed nutjob will be going postal in public. Heinlein's stupid aphorism that "an armed society is a polite society", demonstrably falsified by visiting places such as mogadishu, is more correctly phrased "a society where armed idiots and madmen are commonplace is one where everyone must be armed". That is where we are going.