supreme court wrong: no individual right to a gun versus the state

[dairygirl4u2c]

i know you guys are on a tangent, but to clarify my stance. 'the people' have a right to be in the militia. that's what i think the second amendment provides. because "bear arms" has military connotations as courts have found, such as that state supreme court in the opening post..... even hunters don't bear arms when they hunt. 
this way of looking at it gives emphasis to everyone having a right as "the people" argument is said to infer by modern day conservatives.... but it grants a different right than they'd give, the right to milita membership v the right to a gun period.

[Socrates]

Well if that is the argument - I don't think that all of "the people" made up the state militias. Did women fight? Maybe one or two. What if a state government around that time had said - "we desire to limit the militia of our state to men over the age of 25 years of age"? If a state government chooses to do that (and I would think that a "States Rights" person would agree that a state has a right to define its militia) - why would folks who are not called to fight have a right to own guns?

Did slaves make up the state militia? If at the time the 2nd Amendment were enacted there were state laws that prohibited slaves from keeping guns do you think that any of the founding fathers would have thought such a law to be unconstitutional?

The point was that the language of the constitution seems to grant a right to bear arms for the purpose of forming a state militia, but not for the purpose of using a gun for hunting for food or personal self-defense. So a state may arguably place limits on gun ownership for purposes that do not relate to forming a militia. If a Muslim person makes a religious vow never to fight as a member of a militia for State X, but only to carry out Jihad when called upon to do so, can State X pass a law that says he is not entitled to own a gun?

Sure. But I don't think that necessarily implies a right to own a gun (or to set booby traps in your house, create bombs, keep a stick of dynamite, etc.)

Unless the declaration suggests that "the people" have a right to bear arms for the purpose of forming a militia, of course.

Well again - to be more specific (and if you read the dissent to the relevant case you will see that they make this clear) - they do not deny that that the right to bear arms is an individual right in the sense that the right is theoretically available to all people. The debate is whether or not the right to own guns is limited to certain purposes. Here - the constitution only really need to spell out that purpose. It is then up to the states to define their own militias however they choose, and if they want to restrict them to men over the age of 25 (or define them in some other way), then they can enact laws that say that persons not falling into that category can be restricted from owning guns.

But to flip that own line of argument against you - if the drafters had intended indicate that men may own guns for any purpose, why not just write "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Why would you preface that statement with language that could reasonably be interpreted as limiting the right to bear arms to a particular purpose (in this case, the formation of a well regulated militia)?

This is a fair point. We have not established whether persons at that time would have understood the phrase "bear arms" to indicate gun ownership for hunting or private-self defense, or for military reasons. I think we can both agree on how people would typically imagine that phrase today. Are you aware of some specific time or circumstances that caused that language usage to change?

Well then we are right back to square one again I think. I don't see anything inherent in the phrase "the people" that would indicate "each and every person".

I think that there is a reasonable argument that the primary concern around the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified was to ensure that States could maintain their own militias without interference from the Federal Government. But as to the question of whether individual states can regulate gun ownership among its own citizens - I think the question is a lot tougher and that the answer is not clear.

Personally, I think that individual people should be able to own guns for their own personal safety and the safety of their families. But I don't think that is really what the 2nd Amendment was about. Since the constitution is ambiguous on that point (in my view), I don't have any problem with interpreting it in a way that is consistent with the natural right that a person has to provide for the safety of himself and his family. I don't think that other people who come to a different conclusions are necessarily buffoons or ill-willed.

Sure. But again - that is not really what anyone today is concerned with. The question now is not whether the Federal Government has a right to forcibly disarm citizens, but rather the extent to which individual states may impose laws on their citizens that restrict gun ownership.

LOL. Well that is not much better now is it? I don't think you need to be ignorant, a fool, dishonest, or power-hungry to reach a conclusion that is the opposite of the conclusion that you reached. I think that there are reasonable arguments on both sides and that reasonable people can come to different conclusions on the matter.

For someone who says he believes the second amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, you sure are straining to make arguments to the contrary.

 

But most of these arguments you dragged up rest on notion that the right to keep and bear arms is dependent on militia membership, and, again, the second amendment does not state this right to be conditional, or dependent on militia membership or activity or anything else.  There's no "if" in there.  It's basic grammar.  To read a conditional "if" clause in the amendment is to read something into it that is not there.

Grammatically, the statement is the same as (to make up a somewhat silly example) "Fresh vegetables being necessary to a healthy diet, the right of the people to grow and eat vegetables shall not be infringed."  If that were the law, the right to grow and eat veggies would not go away if someone in the government were to declare vegetables to no longer be healthy, or if people chose to grow and raise them for reasons other than health.

In fact, a militia of free citizens, as the founders envisioned, is dependent on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the other way around.

 

I stand by my statement that those who deny that the second amendment unconditionally protects the right of persons to keep and bear arms are either ignorant of basic English grammar (like the OP), or else dishonestly twisting its words to suit their own agenda. 

 

[Peace]

For someone who says he believes the second amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, you sure are straining to make arguments to the contrary.

The argument that I am making is that one does not need to be ignorant, a fool, dishonest, or power hungry in order to reach a conclusion that is different than yours. I think that there are reasonable arguments on both sides.

As for whether my arguments are strained - I think that is in the eye of the beholder.

But most of these arguments you dragged up rest on notion that the right to keep and bear arms is dependent on militia membership, and, again, the second amendment does not state this right to be conditional, or dependent on militia membership or activity or anything else.  There's no "if" in there.  It's basic grammar.  To read a conditional "if" clause in the amendment is to read something into it that is not there.

Let's say that you delete the entire "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," part of the clause.

Let's say that the entire text said only "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - I think that this statement by itself is ambiguous as to whether it recognizes a right by each and every person to own a weapon for personal defense (I think we both agree that it does not include convicted rapists). The "well regulated Militia" part of the statement may not be a condition in a strict grammatical sense, but it does a provide context in which to interpret the rest of the statement.

Now - you don't think that "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is ambiguous. That is fine. We disagree on that point. I think we have already discussed that enough.

I stand by my statement that those who deny that the second amendment unconditionally protects the right of persons to keep and bear arms are either ignorant of basic English grammar (like the OP), or else dishonestly twisting its words to suit their own agenda. 

Well. How about me? I have already stated here that I believe that people should be allowed to own weapons. So there goes me trying to dishonestly trying to twist words to suit my agenda. I guess that makes me ignorant of basic English grammar, because I have concluded that the other side has a reasonable argument?

An alternative could be that the right to gun ownership is something that is personally very important to you, and because of that you are biased and fail to see the reasonableness of the other side of the argument due to that bias.

This is also a possibility, although I would imagine that it is not one that you find conceivable given what you have written previously.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Peace

[dairygirl4u2c]

it seems to hinge on what "bear arms" means. if it's connoted to militas, then "the people" have a right to militia membership. that's the most straight forward reading of it. the non dependent clause referencing the militia just gives more evidence of this. it's straining the amendment to think it applies to everyone for self defense only... that's where the ignorance lies. 

someone might think the militia is comprised of anyone who has a gun, but historically militias were based on the state, and usually everyone only happened to be in hte militia. (at least the males.... it makes one wonder if females should have gun rights according to conservative reading of history and amendments)

Edited November 11, 2015 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

it would be interesting if the politics didn't turn the conservative position from the second amendment refers to the militia to anyone can have a gun for self defense etc. then the conservative position would still be the collective rights argument. where would cookie cutter conservatives like socrates be? he tends to be one of hte biggest cookie cutter conservatives i can think of. (read, you can tell what he thinks just by reading a pamphlet or propaganda on present era conservative thought.. never mind what parties have at variance believed throughout history.... without even meeting him) but i think it was only conservative academics and judges who thought it was only militia related, as lay people, all those cookie cutters might have kept the everyday mentality that people have a right to a gun, period. which would mean there'd be no difference today even had the politics not changed. 

[Winchester]

it seems to hinge on what "bear arms" means. if it's connoted to militas, then "the people" have a right to militia membership. that's the most straight forward reading of it. the non dependent clause referencing the militia just gives more evidence of this. it's straining the amendment to think it applies to everyone for self defense only... that's where the ignorance lies. 

someone might think the militia is comprised of anyone who has a gun, but historically militias were based on the state, and usually everyone only happened to be in hte militia. (at least the males.... it makes one wonder if females should have gun rights according to conservative reading of history and amendments)

It hinges on the design of the constitution, and that is a document which enumerates the powers of the federal government. Show me the enumerated power for the feds to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms. Artilce 1, Section 8. I know I sound like a broken record, but that's because all these arguments you lot keep advancing are pointless. Cough up the enumerated power. Don't bother with the Supremes, or the President, or any other employee/ subordinate of the people. Their opinions are precious and cute, but in their capacity as federal employees, they are not party to the constitution, but instead operating as creatures of it.

The constitution was sold as a document that enumerated the few powers of a general government, and outlined any powers given up by the states in forming the union. Without an enumerated power, the discussion is over. From a legal standpoint. It's obvious the federal government ignores the terms of its contract.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think u r confusing the issues. 
i dont claim the feds have much power to restrict or ban guns. the states do though. i know i talk about getting rid of guns, but that's if we change the constitution and a separate matter. if anyone has any explaining to do, it's winchester cause he seems to think the incorportion doctrine is suspicious but still thinks the second amendment somehow applies to the states. how?  as far as i can see he thinks people have a right to a gun, and i suppose that means against the state,   

the bill of rights is an indictment against the feds. and, we can just look at the need for enumerated powers without regard to the bill of rights, as the bill of rights is just icing on the cake, to see the feds are limited. 

Edited November 12, 2015 by dairygirl4u2c

[Peace]

It hinges on the design of the constitution, and that is a document which enumerates the powers of the federal government. Show me the enumerated power for the feds to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms. Artilce 1, Section 8. I know I sound like a broken record, but that's because all these arguments you lot keep advancing are pointless. Cough up the enumerated power. Don't bother with the Supremes, or the President, or any other employee/ subordinate of the people. Their opinions are precious and cute, but in their capacity as federal employees, they are not party to the constitution, but instead operating as creatures of it.

The constitution was sold as a document that enumerated the few powers of a general government, and outlined any powers given up by the states in forming the union. Without an enumerated power, the discussion is over. From a legal standpoint. It's obvious the federal government ignores the terms of its contract.

In your opinion, does the US Constitution prohibit a state from passing a law that restricts gun ownership?

Do you agree that individual states may pass laws that restrict gun ownership? If you assert that they may not (or that they are limited in the restrictions that they may pass), what would that assertion be based on, if not the US Constitution?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i dont know winchester's reasoning, but it's ironic that most conservatives are forced to use the same amendment to grant themselves a right to a gun, as the court has said grants women the right to an abortion. 

[Winchester]

In your opinion, does the US Constitution prohibit a state from passing a law that restricts gun ownership?

Do you agree that individual states may pass laws that restrict gun ownership? If you assert that they may not (or that they are limited in the restrictions that they may pass), what would that assertion be based on, if not the US Constitution?

There's no such denial of that power to the states by the US constitution. The issue is with each of the state constitutions. Some might, some might not. I mean this in a strictly legal sense, of course.

[dairygirl4u2c]

So Winchester seems to take the liberal position that states may restrict guns and the US Constitution does not protect from states

[dairygirl4u2c]

even after the 14th amendment the supreme court didn't think the second amendment was incorporated against the states. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

they took the position of winchester. showing again that the traditionally conservative position aka the now liberal position is that states are not restricted from gun control. only recently has the court must have overturned that.

[Winchester]

So Winchester seems to take the liberal position that states may restrict guns and the US Constitution does not protect from states

I'm going with the constitution as ratified, nothing more. That's not the "liberal" position because the liberal position is to take a position and then dig a rabbit warren to make it look like it goes with the constitution. Incidentally, this is also the conservative position.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well i respect your value of truth, even if it makes you by chance line up with the liberals. (even if you dont want to call it the liberal position) i'll throw you a bone and let you call it the "classically conservative" position.... causes that's what it is, too. 

[Winchester]

well i respect your value of truth, even if it makes you by chance line up with the liberals. (even if you dont want to call it the liberal position) i'll throw you a bone and let you call it the "classically conservative" position.... causes that's what it is, too. 

My position is that the constitution has no authority at all.