# Gun rights



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I'm curious, and I've never gotten a straight answer to this question:

Do people who argue that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is absolute carry it to its logical conclusion?

That is, is there any legitimate, constitutional basis for any government regulation of the weapons an individual is permitted to possess? 

Machine guns?

Bazookas?

Flamethrowers?

Tactical nuclear missiles?

Chemical or biological warfare agents?

If so, why is some regulation of the right to keep and bear arms permissible and other regulation not?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I'm curious, and I've never gotten a straight answer to this question:
> 
> Do people who argue that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is absolute carry it to its logical conclusion?
> 
> ...


The government has no right to prevent any gun ownership, except mentally ill. When people abuse their rights then they should pay the price. What the liberal government does instead is take away the rights of the innocence to prevent a few from being punnished, since they won't punnish the wicked and evil.

Some liberals are not interested in taking away rights and personal reponciblilty, but the liberals today in government are taking away are rights.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

Terribly confusing. The second amendment deals with the right to raise and maintain a militia. This has been stretched to mean that anyone has the right to maintain any kind of firepower they want, if not prohibited by state law.

As a libertarian it has always seemed that the government has the obligation to step forward to protect the citizens of the republic in areas where they can't protect themselves. It also seems that the ownership of handguns is a great danger to many citizens that calls for government intervention.

This obviously goes against the conviction of many conservatives and NRA advocates.

When you get down to it, the only purpose for a hand gun, is to kill at close range. Society can't possibly benefit from these things in great abundance on most street corners.

The long guns for hunting and such seems to be well justified. 

People that try to justify hand guns for home protection, are under the illusion that firing them works like it does on TV. A hand gun for home protection is probably of greater danger to the homeowner, that to a potential outside threat.

If firepower is needed for home protection, a shotgun is ideally suited for the average civilian.

Very confusing to me, and I'm sure that someone here has come to better conclusions than I am able to reach.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I think it was absolute that the Federal Government cannot limit gun rights or paramilitary militias (they are just a form of assembly). I believe the right to self-defense is a God-given right, natural law, whatever you want to call it and therefore so is the means to do so. I believe Lincoln made all that largely moot, but that's a different issue. Philosophically? Yes, it's absolute.

I think it's reasonable to *conclude* that "the right to keep and bear arms" refers to personal arms or what would be called small arms.

I believe that states can and should regulate gun ownership. And; that the states have the right to organize and/or disband all militias and paramilitary groups. There was a Florida Militia that was disbanded about 10-15 years ago, for example.

I would like to see state requirements at least equivalent to those for driving a motor vehicle enacted. _Somehow_ we manage to get those roughly equivalent and reasonable in every state.

I am against restrictions on mechanisms such as full-auto, semi-auto, or ammunition methods/quantities which I find to be an infringement on the right itself. I.E. if I legislate that you can only have a single-shot derringer in .22lr I have effectively disarmed you in a practical sense. Such as the Police were complaining about having .38 special wheelguns while the perps had hi-cap 9mms years back.

FWIW, I resigned my NRA membership a long, long time ago. I disagree with their stated beliefs, strategies, and tactics.

OTOH I would like to see greater penalties for negligence. I'm about as far to the right as a person can get on most things. I believe guns exist primarily to kill people (not to hunt or shoot paper targets.) I believe responsible citizens and heads of households have the responsibility or right to kill people attempting to harm their family. My wedding vows included the traditional oath to love & protect my family. I believe we have to answer for it to our community and God. I'm willing to do that and I think those that aren't should have their guns removed by their local community. I support zero-tolerance policies for any type of gun play, and I think all gun accidents should be reviewed for negligence and if necessary privileges revoked by the local community. I'd say a county Judge can handle that evaluation just fine.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Intrepid said:


> People that try to justify hand guns for home protection, are under the illusion that firing them works like it does on TV. A hand gun for home protection is probably of greater danger to the homeowner, that to a potential outside threat.
> 
> If firepower is needed for home protection, a shotgun is ideally suited for the average civilian.


I think someone can't say what is ideal for other people. Particularly if you consider Wives. My Wife cannot deploy a shotgun, but she can handle a DA handgun just fine. She can also retain it long enough to fire at point blank range which she can't do with a shotgun.

I'm curious what it is you think works on TV?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

To understand the history of 'the gun issue' one should be ARMED with a history of the gun, which coincidentaly is the name of a very good television series. Our founding fathers lived in a time when the Kalashnikof of it's day was a flintlock longarm or Pistole of @ .58 to .70 caliber discharging a single load of 'buck or ball.' There were these german guys with rifled 'jaeger' hunting arms of greater accuracy but slower reloading times. Armies were manueverd en mass to deliver volley fire followed by bayonet charges with field artillary and cavalry used to further the basic aim of dislodging one's foe to disadvantage in the field. Until the civil War, the worlds first 'modern war' with repeating arms, aerial observation, submarines and ironclad warships, an individual citisen was essentialy as well armed as any single professional soldier. This was the balance of potential physical power the authors of our government spoke of. And, I might add, considering the Mujahadien's successful killing of AK 487 armed soviets with old SMLE or even those same flintlocks at range one I'm very comfortable with. My plan is simple. Should an alien government, foriegn or domestic attempt such an invasion I will do the same. Then, after the holder of a squad weapon, flamethrower, LAW or truck with a thermonuclear device stops twitching I now have same. ANd my SMLE only cost me $89.99


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> I'm curious, and I've never gotten a straight answer to this question:
> 
> Do people who argue that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is absolute carry it to its logical conclusion?
> 
> ...


No.



> Bazookas?


No.



> Flamethrowers?


No.



> Tactical nuclear missiles?


Yes.



> Chemical or biological warfare agents?


Yes.



> If so, why is some regulation of the right to keep and bear arms permissible and other regulation not?


Because some arms are so nasty that controls on their possession would pass strict scrutiny.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

I think that the right is absolute. If I am to live with a balance of power between my rights and government control then I should have the same capacity to defend myself. This does not mean I actually would. However if I want to cross the dividing line between a half inch diameter projectile and a 5/8 inch projectile (a major offense at this point in time) I should be able to. While I am too frugal to care about automatic weapons which are a joke in most situations, if I move to a remote ranch and find myself overwhelmed by varmints, I should have the opportunity to equalize the situation regardless of the leg count of said varmints.
Just remember that cannons were the weapons of mass destruction of yesteryear and they were not prohibited. The lack of restriction on this massive weapon tells us our founding fathers did not limit us in any way. 
The arguments of what is acceptable is just invention. We have many sources to confirm what was and was not intended so study and let their own words guide you.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Not just cannons--but ships loaded down with them. Add to that explosive rockets, big barrels of gunpowder (the old kind that tended to explode in storage), short-barreled shotguns, pistols, etc., etc.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Because some arms are so nasty that controls on their possession would pass strict scrutiny.


AKA Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I realized to late that to be fair to Jack, I should have should have posted like he did to me:

"You've really lost it this time if you think RKBA advocates think the 2nd Amendment guarantees them access to nukes and biological weapons."

However, since I'm not a self-identified, liberal elitist violating my own stated values it's not in my nature.

I apologize for dropping my end of the log.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I think someone can't say what is ideal for other people. Particularly if you consider Wives. My Wife cannot deploy a shotgun, but she can handle a DA handgun just fine. She can also retain it long enough to fire at point blank range which she can't do with a shotgun.
> 
> I'm curious what it is you think works on TV?


By TV, I'm referring to the scenes where there is a hand gun used with deadly accuracy, at a considerable distance. Most handguns are not useful at more than a couple of yards. I'm afraid that people that have never had any training in how to use a hand gun, buy one and think that they can be accurate at a significant range, because it appears that way on TV. "Seemed to work well for Bronson, and Inspector Callahan."

It's obviously up to the individual homeowner what they want for home protection, but in order to work, a hand gun has to be fired with a fair degree of accuracy, and it is not that difficult to disarm most people with a hand gun.

OTOH, there are shotguns that are light weight enough to be handled well by a small woman or child. Accuracy is not an issue. Also, nothing deters an intruder like the sound of a round being jacked into the breach of the weapon.

If a round does strike an intruder, depending on the shot that you use, you may disable, rather than kill an intruder. Sadly, many home owners have not fared well in our criminal justice system when they have used deadly force, even against an intruder, on their own property.

My problem with hand guns, is not the women that use them for home protection. 18 wheelers carry huge cargos of them daily from states with loose hand gun laws into the east coast every day. 99% of them go directly into the hands of street gangs, and drug dealers. Seems that there is a growing hazard to the civilian population, that is becoming more dangerous, geometrically.

It's hard to visualize any value, in a civilized society, for hand guns, except for law enforcement officials.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I don't know about your home, but mine has lots of doors and lots of corners. A shotgun with a minimum barrel length of 18 inches is a liability in close quarters.

Not to mention that large shotguns cannot easily be hidden in the home or carried on the person as a primary _or backup_ weapon.

Handguns have a very real role in home defense, just like they do in military applications.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Intrepid said:


> By TV, I'm referring to the scenes where there is a hand gun used with deadly accuracy, at a considerable distance. Most handguns are not useful at more than a couple of yards. I'm afraid that people that have never had any training in how to use a hand gun, buy one and think that they can be accurate at a significant range, because it appears that way on TV. "Seemed to work well for Bronson, and Inspector Callahan."
> 
> It's obviously up to the individual homeowner what they want for home protection, but in order to work, a hand gun has to be fired with a fair degree of accuracy, and it is not that difficult to disarm most people with a hand gun.
> 
> ...





PedanticTurkey said:


> I don't know about your home, but mine has lots of doors and lots of corners. A shotgun with a minimum barrel length of 18 inches is a liability in close quarters.
> 
> Not to mention that large shotguns cannot easily be hidden in the home or carried on the person as a primary _or backup_ weapon.
> 
> Handguns have a very real role in home defense, just like they do in military applications.


I also disagree with most of that.

I can only speak for myself, but we still have to aim shotguns down here in _ROME'S_ _outer provinces_ :devil:

If anything I think TV perpetuates shotgun myths. Such as that one doesn't have to aim or that every felon within earshot will bolt at the mere sound of a shotgun being racked. I figure anyone with the balls to invade an occupied home ain't scared or rational, but that's just a guess.

Most altercations take place within 7 feet IIRC. Also most rooms are 10-15 feet across. I think the odds go with the handgun as being more retainable, but YMMV.

I don't really care, except you seem to want to limit my choices in how to protect my family. You should be able to use a shotgun if you think it's best. I should be able to use a handgun. It's my family and vice-versa.

I also was unaware that handguns travelled by insecure tractor trailer while shotguns were distributed by a more secure method. I think around here you can get a shotgun much easier than a handgun. There is no waiting period or background check for long guns IIRC.

Also, down here, I think you are not legally authorized to intentionally wound someone. No disrespect, but to me the intentional wound thing sounds more like TV. I'm a damn good shot and I compete, but under stress I'm shooting center mass like I was taught not aiming for the guy's knee cap. We have the castle doctrine here and maybe that is different than up there. The lawyers and police tell us OFF THE RECORD it's better to kill the guy so he can't testify or sue you in civil court.

When I took the CCW course they joked that you better still be in shock standing over the guy pulling the trigger on an empty chamber mumbling that you thought he was going to kill you when the cops arrive.

I certainly wouldn't tell someone in NJ how to live or to how to defend their own home.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Intrepid, what are your qualifications as a pundit on small arms combat shooting? I do not mean weekend paintgun games, qualifying once in the military, reading the opinions of others , fossilised folklore or that alchemy called statistics. Have you ever been in a military or civilian situation and had to use deadly force?


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

All of the Bill of Rights seem to stop short of their extreme conclusions with "reasonable" restrictions on some forms of behavior. Can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater (unless it's actually on fire) so likewise I suppose carrying a tactical nuclear weapon into the Bijou would be similarly off-limits.

What surprises me about the recent SC ruling and the 2nd Amendment is what was left out originally because it was so patently obvious to everyone, that being the traditional and common law right to self-defense. Not one of the brilliant men that put this nation together thought such a self-evident thing needed talking about in the Constitution, so instead we get this wile-full amendment with such unclear language open to two drastically different interpretations.

Sir Jack, I can't say for sure what the logical conclusion of following the 2nd Amendment all the way to the end would be, but I feel reasonably certain those that wrote it would find undue restrictions on the right of self-defense to be dangerously unwise. How that old tradition and common law idea might square with the amendment is something I think the latest court ruling sadly missed.

Having said all that I think there is a reasonable Constitutional basis for the regulation of weapons as the need for those weapons must be balanced with the entire Constitution and not taken as a single fixed and inviolable point. Restrictions on firearms don't just pivot in isolation off the 2nd Amendment, but run into a host of other issues like interstate commerce, state's rights, federal border maintenance, etc. It's a big document and there is the potential to find weapons regulation all over it, so to speak.

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

WA said:


> The government has no right to prevent any gun ownership, except mentally ill. QUOTE]
> 
> Wrong. The Second Amendment is no more absolte than the First, which allows for time, place, and manner restrictions. Gun ownership can be regulated and the right does not extend to any and all manner of weaponry. But it cannot be outlawed.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Intrepid said:


> Terribly confusing. The second amendment deals with the right to raise and maintain a militia. This has been stretched to mean that anyone has the right to maintain any kind of firepower they want, if not prohibited by state law.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Wrong, both historically and grammatically. The militia clause is independent, not dependent. It explains the right's rationale, but does not limit the right per se. That has been the common understanding of the Amendment since its inception.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> WA said:
> 
> 
> > The government has no right to prevent any gun ownership, except mentally ill.
> ...


I think "prevent" would mean "out-lawed."

One definition of infringed is to encroach and to frustrate. I think "infringed" means those must be reasonable restrictions as the arguments and decision discussed. When the restrictions become such that they frustrate the actual exercise of the right they are Un-Constitutional such as the trigger lock or disassembly requirement.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Quay said:


> What surprises me about the recent SC ruling and the 2nd Amendment is what was left out originally because it was so patently obvious to everyone, that being the traditional and common law right to self-defense. Not one of the brilliant men that put this nation together thought such a self-evident thing needed talking about in the Constitution, so instead we get this wile-full amendment with such unclear language open to two drastically different interpretations.


The language is really not unclear at all. It just _sounds_ unclear to us, 200-something years later.

There are literally hundreds of contemporary statements of rights written in the same fashion as the second amendment. See Volokh's "The Commonplace Second Amendment" for a lot of them-- he calls it a "justification clause."

What really confuses people is that we don't understand many of the terms of art in the text, or the context that it was written.

"A well-regulated"

Well-regulated means working well, like a clock that keeps good time.

"militia"

The body of all citizens capable of bearing arms.

"being necessary to the security of a free state"

A reference to the Virginia Declaration of Rights. At the time of the framing of the Constitution, standing armies were feared (this is why Congress can only fund an army 2 years at a time). This is also just a jab at standing armies, saying that an armed populace is a better defense against foreigners and a defense available forever against standing armies that might fall back into the pattern of historical abuse that we seem to have forgotten.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This is the most plain, direct, and powerful statement of a right in the entire constitution. For comparison, liberals love "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" because they think it bans local schools from teaching the bible.



> Having said all that I think there is a reasonable Constitutional basis for the regulation of weapons as the need for those weapons must be balanced with the entire Constitution and not taken as a single fixed and inviolable point. Restrictions on firearms don't just pivot in isolation off the 2nd Amendment, but run into a host of other issues like interstate commerce, state's rights, federal border maintenance, etc. It's a big document and there is the potential to find weapons regulation all over it, so to speak.


No ****! That's why the amendment is there, to say with absolute certainty that NO POWER afforded the federal government can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

ksinc said:


> My Wife cannot deploy a shotgun, but she can handle a DA handgun just fine. She can also retain it long enough to fire at point blank range which she can't do with a shotgun.


Not to get off topic but the ideal personal defense weapon for use in the home by your wife would be a shotgun, just not a 12 gauge. A .12 gauge not only packs one heck of a recoil but also a terrific concussion blast when fired in a confined area like a living room.

A better weapon for this would be one of the short barreled .410 pump action guns designed just for this purpose. I think both Remington and Mossberg market them. This gun packs the same punch as a .357 Magnum but spread out over a larger area and with less than half the recoil. It's ideal for women. Not only that but just the pump action sound of a shell being chambered is enough to send many would be intruders high tailing it off into the night.

I have a carry permit for my .357 but should an intruder try to come into my home the weapon I would go for is my little .410 Mossberg "Home Security" model shotgun.

Cruiser


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Original Intent vs Evolving standards*

I am not trying to start a debate over limiting Constitutional interpretation to the framers original intent or to allowing interpretaion based on evolving standards, but the original intent does seem to support the right of each individual to own weapons regardless of membership in a militia. The people who were wrote the Constitution had just overthrown a government they viewed as tyranical, and, at the time, one of the greatest stumbling blocks to a more unified Federal government was the fear of replacing one tyranny with another.

I've often read the argument that the arms people owned back then were muzzle loading rifles, and that doesn't compare to modern automatics or even semi-automatics. This might be true, but only if the government went back to muzzle loaders as well.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> The language is really not unclear at all. It just _sounds_ unclear to us, 200-something years later.
> 
> "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> This is the most plain, direct, and powerful statement of a right in the entire constitution.


Convenient of you to skip over this as though there were no issues to be understood or analyzed in this whole clause, so I'll review some of them for you:

"The people". Does this mean the collectivity of the populace, or of every individual? Think this is absolutely clear? If so, then why doesn't the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech, or the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process, or the Eight Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment place those rights in "the people"? Maybe they intentionally used "the people" when they intended to refer to collective rights, such as the right to peaceably assemble; if this is the case, maybe the Second Amendment intended to guarantee some kind of collective right, not an individual one.

Does "the people" include convicted felons? Committed mental patients? If not, where in the text of this amendment do you find these exceptions?

"Keep and bear arms". What are "arms"? Do they refer to individually owned weapons, or only to military armaments? Is there contemporaneous evidence that when Americans in 1789 referred to their individual hunting guns they used the term "arms"? If the supporters of gun rights think that the right is needed to defend themselves against the government, does this mean that "arms" includes every category of weaponry that the government has, up to including tanks, armor-piercing bullets, hand grenades, fighter planes, and nuclear weapons? If not, what rule of construction enables you to draw the line, and where in the text of this amendment can it be found?

"Keep and bear". Does this mean only that you have an individual right to own them, or does it mean that every person is privileged to have weapons with him or her at all times, concealed or otherwise?

"Infringed". Is there any limitation on the ability of any individual to possess any weapon that is permissible under this amendment? Is it an infringement of my right to keep and bear arms if I'm not allowed to own a gun because I'm a convicted felon? If not, where in the text does it say that? As referred to above, do prohibitions or restrictions on the type of weapon or ammunition I am allowed to own "infringements" of my right to keep and bear arms? If not, where in the text is there any basis for this?

I'm not assuming that I know what the answers to these questions are. I am pointing out that there are plenty of questions that demonstrate that this clause is not nearly as simple and unambiguous as you would like it to be.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Arms*

Gentlemen

Long story short. You can pack a weapon!
I am a member of the NRA, and Team Glock and Team Sig..
It is a sweet victory.

Nice day my friends


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Let me ask again; how many here; military, law enforcment, civilian have used deadly force? Constitutional debates are no more than shooting atintellectual paper targets and personal whim or fad of weapon choice mere consumerism. Anybody here pulled the trigger of anything on a fellow human being and blown them away?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Kav

I'll step up and say that I have not. 

Now what?

If someone steps up and says they have, then what?

(just trying to help you get to your point)


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

My point? The gun debate is largely argued by a bunch of virgins who think they're Doctor Ruth and Heidi Fleisse.


----------



## mommatook1 (Apr 17, 2008)

Intrepid said:


> ... Also, nothing deters an intruder like the sound of a round being jacked into the breach of the weapon...


+1. An old boss of mine was able use this method to scare off some intruders in his garage one night (he owned expensive auto/shop equipment & tools). He just went out on his porch and cycled the slide on his 870. It suddenly got very quiet in his garage. By the time the police showed up, said intruders were gone; minimal items had been stolen. IMO this is the optimal way to diffuse such a situation.

Another benefit of the tactical shotgun is that you can use non-lethal loads, attach a flashlight to assist in positive identification, and if you do fire it you are less likely to penetrate a wall and accidentally harm a family member.

:idea: Of course, nothing beats a dog who likes to bark at things that go bump in the night. This will deter an intruder far in advance of the time when a firearm might be necessary.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Kav said:


> My point? The gun debate is largely argued by a bunch of virgins who think they're Doctor Ruth and Heidi Fleisse.


Okay, how about this: my sister's fiance was shot and killed by a bank robber.

Now do I get to play?

I've never been in prison. Do I get to have an opinion about cruel and unusual punishment?

I've never been pregnant. Do I get to have an opinion about abortion?

Just let us know.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Kav said:


> My point? The gun debate is largely argued by a bunch of virgins who think they're Doctor Ruth and Heidi Fleisse.


Maybe the debate should only be joined by those who have "blown" another human being away, but I think there are some valid opinions even among us "virgins".


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

I heard yesterday "As soon as our government starts punishing criminals for gun crimes in a manner that successfully prevents future gun crimes and lowers murder rates, then I will let them tell me what kind of weapon I can or can't have." Quite profound.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

I don't think it's absolute. The reasonability standard is OK, the question is what legal standard they have to hit. That is going to be litigated in the next few years, our jurisprudence hasn't yet "gelled". (I believe the first issue unresolved in Heller that is being litigated is whether the 2nd will be incorporated (that is, held as a restriction against state, county and municipal govts in addition to the federal govt).. the NRA of Illinois has already filed suit against Chicago's gun ban system which is identical to DC's: require a permit, don't print any permits)

I think weapons of mass destruction are flat out due to the immediate danger they pose to the health, welfare and lives of the community at large.

I think 'crew-served' weapons (tanks, howitzers, AA guns, mortars) will largely fail the reasonability test.

Since the primary reason for the 2nd is to ensure that the citizenry cannot be dominated by the state, the question of machine guns is the most interesting. I think the 1986 Bush ban may very well fail the test. Elements of the 1968 federal law may fall as well. The recently expired assault weapons ban seems like an open-and-shut 'no way' example.

If you already have a firearms permit from your state, you should be able to walk down to the gunstore and buy an M4 right off the rack and take it home that day, IMNSHO.

Georgia recently strengthened RKBA (takes effect 7/1, they can't stop you from carrying on public transportation is the big one) and while following the debate in the Georgia Senate, a proponent came out with a factoid that I think makes it a lock:
Since Georgia began issuing the "shall-issue" CCW permit, the permitholders of Georgia have established a record of excellent behaviour. The actual quote was, "These people are more law-abiding than the police". In Georgia that is a *fact*. When I hear people talking about the "Old West" (see Mayor Daley) it's an example that they have no facts on their side. In studies on crime rates in the west they discovered that New York (before Giuliani cleaned it up) and other major cities had a *far*higher* rate of homicide by population than the "wild wild west" ever had.

that may be a bit more than my $0.02, but you can keep the change


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

The best part about this ruling has to be this line from Justice Stevens:

_Even if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself . . . would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law._

That's rich.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Relayer said:


> Maybe the debate should only be joined by those who have "blown" another human being away, but I think there are some valid opinions even among us "virgins".


I agree. I have never used deadly force; but as an EMT many years ago I was required to administer to those who were on the receiving end. The one I will never forget was the 19 year old girl who died in my ambulance only minutes after I promised her I wouldn't let her die. She had been shot in the stomach with a measly little .22 caliber rifle.

Cruiser


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> Not to get off topic but the ideal personal defense weapon for use in the home by your wife would be a shotgun, just not a 12 gauge. A .12 gauge not only packs one heck of a recoil but also a terrific concussion blast when fired in a confined area like a living room.
> 
> A better weapon for this would be one of the short barreled .410 pump action guns designed just for this purpose. I think both Remington and Mossberg market them. This gun packs the same punch as a .357 Magnum but spread out over a larger area and with less than half the recoil. It's ideal for women. Not only that but just the pump action sound of a shell being chambered is enough to send many would be intruders high tailing it off into the night.
> 
> ...


Thank you, for your well meaning advice.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> Let me ask again; how many here; military, law enforcment, civilian have used deadly force? Constitutional debates are no more than shooting atintellectual paper targets and personal whim or fad of weapon choice mere consumerism. Anybody here pulled the trigger of anything on a fellow human being and blown them away?





jackmccullough said:


> Okay, how about this: my sister's fiance was shot and killed by a bank robber.
> 
> Now do I get to play?


Interpreting Kav's question: Only if you shot back! :devil:


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Kav said:


> Let me ask again; how many here; military, law enforcment, civilian have used deadly force? Constitutional debates are no more than shooting atintellectual paper targets and personal whim or fad of weapon choice mere consumerism. Anybody here pulled the trigger of anything on a fellow human being and blown them away?


I haven't killed anyone with anything in my life.

I have pointed a loaded .45 at a would-be home invader who was entering my home to rob me. A crime was prevented, no one got hurt (though that guy was pretty darn scared) and it was not reported in the news. Happens all the time.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> Convenient of you to skip over this as though there were no issues to be understood or analyzed in this whole clause, so I'll review some of them for you:
> 
> "The people". Does this mean the collectivity of the populace, or of every individual? Think this is absolutely clear? If so, then why doesn't the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech, or the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process, or the Eight Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment place those rights in "the people"? Maybe they intentionally used "the people" when they intended to refer to collective rights, such as the right to peaceably assemble; if this is the case, maybe the Second Amendment intended to guarantee some kind of collective right, not an individual one.


Convenient? Look at how contrived your arguments below end up being.

Does "the people" refer to the people, or "the collectivity of the populace." It's remarkable that you can't even cite a single example of "the people" referring to a so-called "collective" right? Do you think the right to assembly is a "collective" right-- that just because some people can assemble, you personally don't have a right to? To quote Justice Scalia, that's "grotesque."

Funny that no one even thought this one up until the 1970s. It's a ridiculous argument that didn't even get a single vote on the Supreme Court.



> Does "the people" include convicted felons? Committed mental patients? If not, where in the text of this amendment do you find these exceptions?


Yes, it absolutely does. Like all Constitutional rights, the right protected by second amendment can be waived or limited by incapacity.



> "Keep and bear arms". What are "arms"? Do they refer to individually owned weapons, or only to military armaments? Is there contemporaneous evidence that when Americans in 1789 referred to their individual hunting guns they used the term "arms"? If the supporters of gun rights think that the right is needed to defend themselves against the government, does this mean that "arms" includes every category of weaponry that the government has, up to including tanks, armor-piercing bullets, hand grenades, fighter planes, and nuclear weapons? If not, what rule of construction enables you to draw the line, and where in the text of this amendment can it be found?


It's found in the word "arms." It's a very simple question-- what did "arms" mean when the amendment was written, and what did it mean when the fourteenth amendment presumably applied it to the states.



> "Keep and bear". Does this mean only that you have an individual right to own them, or does it mean that every person is privileged to have weapons with him or her at all times, concealed or otherwise?
> 
> "Infringed". Is there any limitation on the ability of any individual to possess any weapon that is permissible under this amendment? Is it an infringement of my right to keep and bear arms if I'm not allowed to own a gun because I'm a convicted felon? If not, where in the text does it say that? As referred to above, do prohibitions or restrictions on the type of weapon or ammunition I am allowed to own "infringements" of my right to keep and bear arms? If not, where in the text is there any basis for this?


Again, you need to look to contemporary sources to determine this. No one says the courts have _no_ role to play in interpreting the laws. If the Constitution was so specific we wouldn't need courts.



> I'm not assuming that I know what the answers to these questions are. I am pointing out that there are plenty of questions that demonstrate that this clause is not nearly as simple and unambiguous as you would like it to be.


Gee, I'm sorry, what did you mean by "these questions"? It's ambiguous! And what do you mean when you say, "pointing out"? What clause? Who are you even referring to when you say, "you"?

Can you answer those questions? Damn right you can, and you don't have to blindfold Justice Kennedy and have him "pin the tail on the right" to do it, either.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

My query was inartfull and extreme. What I want to bring in to this debate are people who have been affected by firearms directly, as you all have who I upset; Again, my apologies. I have listened to this debate from both sides; being a firearm owning 'Liberal'- whatever that means anymore. There are an awfull lot of expert people who have avoided such personal realities. And again, this includes some of the brain dead gun show morons I've met over the years, spouting from their soapboxes and praying God someday lets them 'off' a bad guy with their personal excalibur in the latest fad, peer approved weapons platform. As Cruiser related, a girl died of a .22 wound. Does anyone know what round doctors absolutely hate seeing in an operating room? The .22! It is small, making a difficult to repair wound channel. That channel is full of micro lateral wounds from the ripping action of the now rifled bullet. It is externally lubricated and spreads filth into the wound. The american fireams issue isn't going away. What I wish would though, are all the stale fart arguments. We need to look at the issue without blindfolds and stop feeling up the never mentioned member of that unseen elephant. Pro gun and anti gun people are jerking off the american people until they do.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> My query was inartfull and extreme. What I want to bring in to this debate are people who have been affected by firearms directly, as you all have who I upset; Again, my apologies. I have listened to this debate from both sides; being a firearm owning 'Liberal'- whatever that means anymore. There are an awfull lot of expert people who have avoided such personal realities. And again, this includes some of the brain dead gun show morons I've met over the years, spouting from their soapboxes and praying God someday lets them 'off' a bad guy with their personal excalibur in the latest fad, peer approved weapons platform. As Cruiser related, a girl died of a .22 wound. Does anyone know what round doctors absolutely hate seeing in an operating room? The .22! It is small, making a difficult to repair wound channel. That channel is full of micro lateral wounds from the ripping action of the now rifled bullet. It is externally lubricated and spreads filth into the wound. The american fireams issue isn't going away. What I wish would though, are all the stale fart arguments. We need to look at the issue without blindfolds and stop feeling up the never mentioned member of that unseen elephant. Pro gun and anti gun people are jerking off the american people until they do.


Serious question: if that is your view, how do you stand the NRA?


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Kav said:


> ... Does anyone know what round doctors absolutely hate seeing in an operating room? .....


Yes. Any round of any caliber from any weapon in any part of any human.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Convenient? Look at how contrived your arguments below end up being.
> 
> Does "the people" refer to the people, or "the collectivity of the populace." It's remarkable that you can't even cite a single example of "the people" referring to a so-called "collective" right? Do you think the right to assembly is a "collective" right-- that just because some people can assemble, you personally don't have a right to? To quote Justice Scalia, that's "grotesque."
> 
> ...


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." Until quite recently every court in the country believed-maybe wrongly-that this established a collective-rights rule for the Second Amendment.
According to professor Robert J. Spitzer in his most recent book, Saving the Constitution From Lawyers, in the 70 years since Miller, federal appeals courts have relied on Miller's collective-rights theory more than 40 times, and the Supreme Court has denied certiorari in almost half of those cases-allowing them to stand because it considered this a closed matter.
https://www.slate.com/id/2193813/entry/2194357/


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Have you ever actually read Miller? I have, and I can say that it is brutally obvious that the Court never even contemplated a "collective rights" approach to the issue.

I mean _come on_. It says that there's no evidence the shotgun would be useful to a militia. It doesn't say that the defendant was not a member of a militia, does it? Wouldn't that have been the deciding issue, or do you think the Court just made a careless oversight?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Tell Professor Spitzer.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The Supreme Court just did, 9 to 0 on that issue.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

99% of the NRA members I've met can't stand me. But then 99% of the GREENS can't either. These are the national platforms for issues I care about, and if you think sitting locked down to a piece of lumber company bulldozer next to a patchouli soaked, braided armpit Sonoma State earth mother isn't the supreme test then listening to gun nuts and teletubbie world lefties is easy.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> 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." Until quite recently every court in the country believed-maybe wrongly-that this established a collective-rights rule for the Second Amendment.
> According to professor Robert J. Spitzer in his most recent book, Saving the Constitution From Lawyers, in the 70 years since Miller, federal appeals courts have relied on Miller's collective-rights theory more than 40 times, and the Supreme Court has denied certiorari in almost half of those cases-allowing them to stand because it considered this a closed matter.
> https://www.slate.com/id/2193813/entry/2194357/


Aren't you the same Jack McCullough that said, "I also think it's irresponsible to attack the decision based on news reports instead of on the content of the decision."?

And now; you are quoting Slate? :thumbs-up:


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

Kav said:


> Let me ask again; how many here; military, law enforcment, civilian have used deadly force? Constitutional debates are no more than shooting atintellectual paper targets and personal whim or fad of weapon choice mere consumerism. Anybody here pulled the trigger of anything on a fellow human being and blown them away?


Pull the trigger, no, but on separate occasions my wife and I have used the threat of a firearm to deter a violent situation. Fifteen years ago, I pulled out my 12 gauge to deter some young drunks. My wife pulled out her father's service revolver to deter a couple of men who thought a woman home alone in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina would be an easy target. We are both very happy to have not pulled the trigger, but would have done so if forced. On both occasions, we were in our own homes.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> 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."


Of course after that decision was rendered the Remington M870 shotgun became a staple in the U.S. military. The military version comes in a 14 inch barrel. It was the weapon used by the U.S. Marine boarding party who retook the _Mayaguez _from the Khmer Rouge off of the coast of Cambodia in 1975.

https://img66.imageshack.us/my.php?image=shotgunrem870700pc0.jpg

Cruiser


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Short shotguns were commonly used in WW1, as far as I know. The Supreme Court in Miller could have taken judicial notice of this fact, but chose not to. Since they didn't, it wasn't in evidence.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

I think it has been stated by many here, and I'll agree. The right is subject to the same strict scrutiny as the First Amendment rights.

As for the claims that there is nothing more dangerous to a population than guns. Explain this: if that is the case, why does DC have the highest violent crime rate in the country despite banning handguns? Also, why has crime skyrocketed in England after they banned firearms.

To the argument of a shotgun being better for home defense, it certainly is a good choice; however, I think the handgun has many situations that are more applicable. Not to mention for personal defense outside the home, a handgun is far greater than a longarm.

If you have a hammer, all problems look like a nail.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Shotguns were issued to our troops in WW1 because of a shortage of machineguns. Amazingly, we never issued the BAR and made do with the infamous french chou chou or patato digger. The first 'trenchbroom' was the famed 97 Winchester with a ventilated upper handguard and 1917 pattern Remington Enfield bayonet firing brass case 00 buckshot. The germans protested and announced any americans captured with this weapon would be executed. Our reaction was to issue even more of several makes. I actually had an old 97 issued in 1975, but then we kept a lot of old stuff. Everybody else claimed the 870s. People took one look at that dogeared hammer and fairly feignted. I acquired a mint civilian riot model after my service seperation. It even intimidated a shooting range owner of the nasty STRYKER shotgun with revolving cylinder. But perhaps the sweetest homegun was a Leige belgian guild made sidelock with external hammers in 16 gauge. Some fool had bobbed the barrels . It wasn't the highest of quality, but the etched ducks on the sideplates were forever safe in this butchered modification. My then G/F had a guy walk up on her while doing a archaeologic survey in Sant Cruz. He never noticed the weapon until she swung it around and cocked both hammers. It turns out he was the infamous trailside killer.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

It's funny, too, because if you ask the liberals how a Constitutional right should be interpreted, their answer is almost always "broadly."

Unless it's a right the liberals don't like, like economic rights, advertising, paid political speech, "hate speech," the rights to property, freedom of association, exercise of religion, etc., etc., in which case they forget that maxim.

And we can add "guns" to that list now, too.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Liberals only want a broad reading where they can implement more control. They want us to depend on them and worship their greatness like a deity - because after all most don't believe in God.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

So let get our deer rifles and shoot all the liberals for a better, freer Amerika. They're probably all baby rapers anyway.You can tell a liberal easy enough, They all wear glasses. Thats how Cambodia did it.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> It's funny, too, because if you ask the liberals how a Constitutional right should be interpreted, their answer is almost always "broadly."
> 
> Unless it's a right the liberals don't like, like economic rights, advertising, paid political speech, "hate speech," the rights to property, freedom of association, exercise of religion, etc., etc., in which case they forget that maxim.
> 
> And we can add "guns" to that list now, too.


It's funny, too, because if you ask a conservative how a Constitutional right should be interpreted, their answer is almost always "in favor of state's rights."

Unless it's a right the conservatives don't like, like the rights of the states to maintain a well regulated militia or how to count votes in elections in which case they forget that maxim.

A- in Con Law :icon_smile:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yes, well, I got an "A," so I guess that means I win.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> Liberals only want a broad reading where they can implement more control. They want us to depend on them and worship their greatness like a deity - because after all most don't believe in God.





Stringfellow said:


> It's funny, too, because if you ask a conservative how a Constitutional right should be interpreted, their answer is almost always "in favor of state's rights."
> 
> Unless it's a right the conservatives don't like, like the rights of the states to maintain a well regulated militia or how to count votes in elections in which case they forget that maxim.
> 
> A- in Con Law :icon_smile:


Sadly, both ring true; except Conservatives shoud read Republicans. True Conseratives don't do that. It's why *we* know McCain isn't one.

I've actually decided I dislike the ruling on the gun ban. I think it's a private property issue; not a 2nd Amendment issue.

It was not a Federal gun ban (like the AWB which I thought was un-Constitutional on 2nd Amendment grounds.)

I don't quite understand how the sole protection of civil liberties lies on the 2nd Amendment when liberals find all sorts of privacy rights in other Amendments when it suits their fancy. Surely, the 4th amendment would be relevant - the right of the people to be safe in their homes. All you have to do is read the 4th the way Breyers read the 2nd in his dissent.

A local community, even more so than states, should have a free hand to do as their citizens please. I think that continues right up to the private property line of a home. A city or town council can easily be removed and a bad ordnance can easily be replaced. Clearly the majority of voting citizens in DC and Chicago must want the gun ban, no?

OTOH I'd like to see liberals explain how a local government has the right to look in your nightstand, but not in your bedroom.

I also think the Miller argument regarding military like weapons or common use weapons is a crock. A SBR or AOW is no more dangerous in a home than a long arm or handgun. SBR and AOW comes into relevance when the gun is carried outside the home or concealed. I think this compromise is a bad deal.

What Jack keeps missing is the distinction between State restrictions and Federal restrictions. I don't think Conservatives need to play that game. The 2nd Amendment prohibits federal gun control, but not state gun control.

The State of Florida Constitution is where my right to keep and bear arms for self-protection is codified. How many people actually know what their State Constitution says? Few, I fear.



> *SECTION 8. Right to bear arms.*--
> (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
> (b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.
> (c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.
> (d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun. *History.*--Am. C.S. for S.J.R. 43, 1989; adopted 1990.


All I need and ask is protection from the Federal asshats. If your rights aren't recognized in DC then move to a free state. Problem solved.

The Liberals want us to be citizens of the Federal Government and derive our rights from it. We are not citizens of the Federal Government. We are citizens of the states. Our rights come from God and are recognized as privileges we exercise by our states. The BoR simply defines the limits on the Federal Government as we all should know. This whole mess is a game Conservatives should just refuse to play.

IMHO: Mind your own rights, in your state, in your own community, on your own land, and leave other people alone. Whatever I keep in my own house for the protection of my family is none of your damn business. It won't ever concern you, it won't ever even come up unless you are trying to harm my family. In that case, who gives a flying you-know-what what happens to you?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yeah, but no one actually says that the Constitution should be read "in favor of State's rights." That's a cheap leftist straw man.

The liberals really do say that the bill of rights should be read broadly. When they're trying to make "no person shall be deprived of ... liberty ... without due process of law" into "abortion must always be legal," anyway.

This is why I got the A and he got the A-


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yeah, but no one actually says that the Constitution should be read "in favor of State's rights." That's a cheap leftist straw man.
> 
> The liberals really do say that the bill of rights should be read broadly. When they're trying to make "no person shall be deprived of ... liberty ... without due process of law" into "abortion must always be legal," anyway.
> 
> This is why I got the A and he got the A-


How do you figure? The whole premise of the conservative argument is "the federal government shouldn't regulate X, it should be left up to the states." For instance, the conservatives on the Supreme Court don't want to outlaw abortion, they want the states to be able to outlaw it or keep it - there is no Constitutional provision in favor or against abortion - it is up to the states to regulate it.

And talk about reading the Constitution broadly, _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*_... is now somehow an individual right?!?! Talk about reading broadly! Or maybe conservatives aren't so noble and really just like to play with their guns.

That's why I go to a better school :icon_smile:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I could care less what school you're going to. I'm all about results, and yours ain't producing them. 

You don't seem to be able to distinguish between policy and interpretation, and you certainly haven't read Volokh's short law review article on "justification clauses" that I referenced a few posts up. 

Try making an argument and we'll have a discussion. Let's see where that goes.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> How do you figure? The whole premise of the conservative argument is "the federal government shouldn't regulate X, it should be left up to the states." For instance, the conservatives on the Supreme Court don't want to outlaw abortion, they want the states to be able to outlaw it or keep it - there is no Constitutional provision in favor or against abortion - it is up to the states to regulate it.
> 
> And talk about reading the Constitution broadly, _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*_... is now somehow an individual right?!?! Talk about reading broadly! Or maybe conservatives aren't so noble and really just like to play with their guns.
> 
> That's why I go to a better school :icon_smile:


No, this is the right -> "_the right of the People to keep and bear Arms"_

It's an individual right just as this is -> "_the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"_

You probably do need a better school or to pay better attention. Did you read the opinion? Go to page 77 and read Stevens ridiculous logic on the many different meanings of "the people." It is, frankly, embarrassing.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

California is one of only five states whose constitutions are silent on the issue of gun rights, the others I believe being Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York.

I suppose, now, with the federal ruling we Golden Staters can now do more as we like?

Cordially,
A.Q.https://www.worldnetdaily.com/#


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I could care less what school you're going to. I'm all about results, and yours ain't producing them.
> 
> You don't seem to be able to distinguish between policy and interpretation, and you certainly haven't read Volokh's short law review article on "justification clauses" that I referenced a few posts up.
> 
> Try making an argument and we'll have a discussion. Let's see where that goes.


Typical Rehniquist conservative logic - only the ends matter. Don't muddle up an opinion with reason. Just come to a conclusion! Some of us feel the process matters.

I don't have a problem with guns or "gun rights." My problem is that the "conservative justices" won't just come out and admit that they like guns and feel that this should be an individual right - rather than making a false argument that the founders obviously intended it to be an individual right.

Whether they want to admit it or not, bot sides believe in a "living constitution." For instance, conservatives can read into the constitution a right to own semi-automatic revolvers - something never imagined by the framers. The conservatives believe in an endorsement test for religion - though I have looked at don't seem to see that anywhere in the constitution. And even strict scrutiny and rational basis review don't seem to be mentioned. Thus, the Constitution has evolved with both philosophies. Maybe all of the justices should just be honest and admit that their decisions are based more on politics and less on legal philosophy.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> Typical Rehniquist conservative logic - only the ends matter. Don't muddle up an opinion with reason. Just come to a conclusion! Some of us feel the process matters.


You have to realize how hilarious you sound. You're arguing that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, and you say-- "don't muddle up an opinion with reason"?

Where's _your_ reason, anyway? I don't see any.



> I don't have a problem with guns or "gun rights." My problem is that the "conservative justices" won't just come out and admit that they like guns and feel that this should be an individual right - rather than making a false argument that the founders obviously intended it to be an individual right.


And you don't even seem to understand the most basic argument that Scalia makes-- that the question is not what the founders "intended" or what the "values behind" the Constitution are-- it's what do the words on the document mean?

What does "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" mean to you?

If it could be shown that Jefferson secretly planned to restore the crown when he penned the Declaration of Independence, does that mean that we're still a part of the Empire? Give me a break.



> Whether they want to admit it or not, bot sides believe in a "living constitution." For instance, conservatives can read into the constitution a right to own semi-automatic revolvers - something never imagined by the framers.


The framers lived at a time of remarkable advances in weaponry. The rifle, the revolver, the semi-automatic rifle, the rocket-- had all been invented within living memory. To say that they were so stupid as to have never contemplated advancements in weapons technology is absurd.

It's also irrelevant.



> The conservatives believe in an endorsement test for religion - though I have looked at don't seem to see that anywhere in the constitution. And even strict scrutiny and rational basis review don't seem to be mentioned. Thus, the Constitution has evolved with both philosophies. Maybe all of the justices should just be honest and admit that their decisions are based more on politics and less on legal philosophy.


While you might occassionally attribute conservative decisions to politics, you can _always_ attribute the liberals' decisions to it. It's inherent in their judicial philosophy-- to use the Constitution to "do good," with "good" being defined as whatever the hell the judge thinks is good.

I appreciate that Scalia offers an objective, common sense, and sincere judicial philosophy. He doesn't always follow it, that's true. But when he doesn't, we know about it--how do we know? Because originalism is based on law and reason-- the original meaning of the Constitution controls. How can anyone argue against that?

They can't, that's why you saw BOTH sides in this decision trying to employ originalist arguments for their opinion. It's dangerous grounds for the liberals, because they find themselves arguing against the overwhelming weight of historical evidence and common sense.

But they do it anyway, because they're dishonest. The Constitution is written law, but they refuse to treat it as law. Instead, they want to treat it as you might an abstract painting. A bunch of over-educated, out-of-touch academics standing there stroking their goatees looking at a painting of a house, saying, "I know what it shows, but what does it really mean?"

It's ridiculously dishonest. But that's inherent in their philosophy, too, unless you think twisting the law to suit your own political beliefs is okay...because the ends justify the means...


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> What does "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" mean to you?


What does, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" mean to you?"

I suppose the argument could go both ways - maybe this is what it was a 5-4 decision. And as far as I can tell it was a political decision. Just as Bush Gore was (conservatives are all for state's rights except when state's rights get in the way of a Republican President) and just as Raich was (the Commerce Clause limits the power of the federal government, except when it is used to regulate pot gown in one's own back yard). Conservatives are just as political as liberals. Except conservatives claim they are not and that liberals are "activists." They all seem pretty political to me.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"I suppose, now, with the federal ruling we Golden Staters can now do more as we like?"
Keep us informed on this one. I would love to move back there if they could straighten out their laws. When I can bring back my FN49, G3 and PSL and a few other items I would love to get back to Menlo Park.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> What does, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" mean to you?"


It's a reference to the Virginia Declaration of Rights ("That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power") and the contemporary debate about whether a militia or a standing army was preferred.

If you recall, the standing army folks won out and it made a significant part of the county very nervous.

The prefatory clause thus says, in a very direct way that would be obvious to any educated reader of the day: "Don't worry folks, the government might have an army, but it can never disarm the people."

"Justification clauses" were extremely common at the time, and were understood to not impose any restrictions whatsoever on the right that followed. https://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm



> I suppose the argument could go both ways - maybe this is what it was a 5-4 decision. And as far as I can tell it was a political decision. Just as Bush Gore was (conservatives are all for state's rights except when state's rights get in the way of a Republican President) and just as Raich was (the Commerce Clause limits the power of the federal government, except when it is used to regulate pot gown in one's own back yard). Conservatives are just as political as liberals. Except conservatives claim they are not and that liberals are "activists." They all seem pretty political to me.


5-4 does not a political decision make, when the four liberal justices ALWAYS make political decisions.

Bush v. Gore has been done to death, but you're completely right about Raich. But at least Scalia had the integrity be honest enough not to couch it as an originalist opinion. He's been very forthright about occassionally being a pragmatic "faint-hearted originalist." He didn't want to invalidate the whole New Deal. I can't say I agree with him, but here we are.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> Typical Rehniquist conservative logic - only the ends matter. Don't muddle up an opinion with reason. Just come to a conclusion! Some of us feel the process matters.
> 
> I don't have a problem with guns or "gun rights." My problem is that the "conservative justices" won't just come out and admit that they like guns and feel that this should be an individual right - rather than making a false argument that the founders obviously intended it to be an individual right.
> 
> Whether they want to admit it or not, bot sides believe in a "living constitution." For instance, conservatives can read into the constitution a right to own semi-automatic revolvers - something never imagined by the framers. The conservatives believe in an endorsement test for religion - though I have looked at don't seem to see that anywhere in the constitution. And even strict scrutiny and rational basis review don't seem to be mentioned. Thus, the Constitution has evolved with both philosophies. Maybe all of the justices should just be honest and admit that their decisions are based more on politics and less on legal philosophy.


You realize the seperation of church and state was originally made to protect the church from the state, not vice versa.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

There's no such thing as "separation of church and state." The entire legal idea originates in the late 1940s.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> There's no such thing as "separation of church and state." The entire legal idea originates in the late 1940s.


The Supreme Court first referenced it in 1878, actually based on a letter from Thomas Jefferson from 1802.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

To elaborate, the Constitution has two provisions regarding religion. Both are constraints on _Congress_. One is the free exercise of religion, the other is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ."

An establishment of religion is a national church. Congress cannot establish a national church, and it cannot make laws that treat one church as if it was the national church.

And yet the same clowns who argue that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is some kind of "collective right," insist that this is an individual right providing protection against having to look at nativity scenes on public property owned by a state.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> The Supreme Court first referenced it in 1878, actually based on a letter from Thomas Jefferson from 1802.


Yes, it referenced the letter. So what? It did not declare that "separation of church and state" was some kind of sword that the courts could use against any evidence of religion in government.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

I am not saying the government should attack religion or religion in government.

To the contrary... we're on the same side on this one chief.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> I am not saying the government should attack religion or religion in government.
> 
> To the contrary... we're on the same side on this one chief.


Well, great. If I recall correctly, the case you're referring to was the Mormon/polygamist case-- a free exercise case that had nothing at all to do with establishment. The Supreme Court didn't even cite the letter for the "separation of church and state" bit, but for the proposition that it was okay to prohibit religiously-motivated conduct.

Of course the reference is paraded, in a very dishonest fashion, by the lefties. They know history isn't on their side, so, well, they lie.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Well, great. If I recall correctly, the case you're referring to was the Mormon/polygamist case-- a free exercise case that had nothing at all to do with establishment. The Supreme Court didn't even cite the letter for the "separation of church and state" bit, but for the proposition that it was okay to prohibit religiously-motivated conduct.
> 
> Of course the reference is paraded, in a very dishonest fashion, by the lefties. They know history isn't on their side, so, well, they lie.


But it is "change we can believe in."


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> But it is "change we can believe in."


Yes, they believe that the Constitution exists as a vehicle for leftist social activism and change.

Yes, a constitution-- written law that's meant to exist, unchanged, forever-- is supposed to be a vehicle for advancing leftist political and social causes.

It really makes my blood boil. I'm still interested in it (obviously), but I decided long ago that I don't have the temperament for this ****. I should have listened to one of my favorite professors, who told me after I expressed an interest in the subject--"Why--it's all just bullshit!" Only later would I figure that out.

Plus, it doesn't pay very well...


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

First a personal thought. It seems to me that the Constitution is not a set of laws but a framework to set limits on laws. Of course in reality it is sometimes used as a launch pad to bypass the very Constitution they rely on but that is another story.

Second, I came across this older commentary tonight which is more a guide to who the "people" really are and thought I would pass it along for anyone interested:
https://www.thefiringline.com/Misc/library/kates.html

It does not solve the current argument but might provide a little more fuel for the fire.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Country Irish said:


> "I suppose, now, with the federal ruling we Golden Staters can now do more as we like?"
> Keep us informed on this one. I would love to move back there if they could straighten out their laws. When I can bring back my FN49, G3 and PSL and a few other items I would love to get back to Menlo Park.


Country Irish,

I'll be glad to do what I can to let folks know what is happening out west. I'd suggest anyone wanting current information on the state of firearms in California to keep an eye on the California Rifle & Pistol Association's website at

https://www.crpa.org/

Chances are the CRPA will have a pretty clear read on these things and they have a newsletter, email alerts, etc.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yes, they believe that the Constitution exists as a vehicle for leftist social activism and change.
> 
> Yes, a constitution-- written law that's meant to exist, unchanged, forever-- is supposed to be a vehicle for advancing leftist political and social causes.
> 
> ...


But it equally advances rightist political social causes! Both sides do the same thing - it's just that the right has been really good at saying they don't and that the left is morally corrupt and "activist." The right is just as "active."

At one point you posted that the founders had seen all kinds of military advancements (from rifles to rockets) and now you say they intended a stagnant constitution. If they could foresee tremendous change surely they intended for the constitution to change with the times (they even provided for a Supreme Court to interpret the constitution - they must have imagined that people change with the times). Heck, even Scalia looks to the 1st congress when he tries to interpret the Constitution. I know the 1st congress passed the Bill of Rights but they had nothing to do with the original Constitution. Some meaning had to change in the time between writing the Constitution, ratifying it, voting on a congress, and then convening the congress (I have no idea how much time this took, but it had to take some time).

I bet in reality, the "true" meaning of the Constitution probably lies somewhere in between and neither side is right. But to argue the conservatives are right and the liberals are wrong is to argue John Paul Stevens missed Con Law - there is a reason there are 9 justices.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

*NRA Sues San Francisco on behalf of Gay Gun Owner*

I just can't make this stuff up:

https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/27/MN5B11GMML.DTL&type=printable

Much amused,
A.Q.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"I'll be glad to do what I can to let folks know what is happening out west. "

Thank You Quay! That is most kind. I suspect it will take quite a while for any meaningful change but we can hope for swift and competent changes.
If I ever make it back I will have to start working on the pollution levels there so I can actually see my targets! Overall CA is a wonderful place except for the politics.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

I was interested in the ACLU's reaction. They have once and for all showed their true colors. Many of had hoped that if the 2nd was ever adjucated they would snap out of it. But, no:

"Yet, by concluding that D.C.'s gun control law was unreasonable and thus invalid, the Court placed a constitutional limit on gun control legislation that had not existed prior to its decision in Heller. It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create."

https://www.aclu.org/scotus/2007term/35797prs20080626.html

Our founding documents, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, were constructed specifically to restrict the powers of government over the people. To interdict and preempt the actions of tyrants.

So how does the ACLU react to Heller? They consider it to be a "constitutional straight jacket," an annoying limitation on the power of government over the individual. I say that in the case of Heller, our system worked. They say that's bad. Q.E.D. The mask is off the ACLU.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

Quay said:


> I just can't make this stuff up:
> 
> https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/27/MN5B11GMML.DTL&type=printable
> 
> ...


Yes indeedy, I almost choked on my Wheaties when I read this in the NYT today. After a few fire fights in public housing in San Franscisco there should be a significant number of openings in that housing market. The Emergency Rescue Team may need a 24 hour presence in many of these areas.

The NRA also indicated that they want to overturn the San Franscisco requirement for trigger locks. Sounds reasonable. Trigger locks can be a real problem when you need to respond to loud TV from a neighbor, in a hurry.

In a separate article, the NRA indicated that they were going after zoning laws that prohibit gun stores in certain areas. Seems logical to have one that would be convenient for after school browsing.

If there wasn't going to be such a loss of life resulting from all of this, it would seem to be reasonable to guess that the writers from SNL were scripting the NRA positions.

It's also possible that these things seem totally absurd because I'm not qualified to evaluate ideas like this, since I've never killed anyone with a handgun, or had a girlfriend that just happened to be armed with a shotgun, when she was digging for artifacts, in the woods, at the instant that she was approached by the infamous trail killer.

Unfortunately, the number of people that have actually had a combination of experiences like this, except in their fantasy world, is zero; and the rest of us may need to weigh in from time to time, as unqualified as we may be.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

*Typical Turkey*

I just can't help but notice the series of typical posts by Pedantic Turkey that illustrates his method of argumentation.

First, here's what he says in Post 69:

_"There's no such thing as "separation of church and state." The entire legal idea originates in the late 1940s."_

Get that: it "*originates in the late 1940's"*.

Brokencycle then demonstrates that PT's statement is false:

Brokencycle, post 70:

_The Supreme Court first referenced it in 1878, actually based on a letter from Thomas Jefferson from 1802._

Turkey, being in the uncomfortable position of having to confront the facts, responds by changing the subject:

Pedantic Turkey, post 72:

_Yes, it referenced the letter. So what? It did not declare that "separation of church and state" was some kind of sword that the courts could use against any evidence of religion in government._

Remember, Turkey's original post didn't say anything about "separation of church and state" being some kind of sword. He said the "legal idea" originated in the late 1940's. Are we supposed to think that somehow when the Supreme Court discussed it in 1878, or when Jefferson wrote about it in 1802, it wasn't a "legal idea"? I don't know what that would mean. Maybe Turkey could explain it to us all.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Have you ever actually read Miller? I have, and I can say that it is brutally obvious that the Court never even contemplated a "collective rights" approach to the issue.


And have you read all of the cases that Spitzer refers to?


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

What the NRA is doing is selecting the most egregious cases that are most on point with Heller and launching lawsuits in attempt to accomplish incorporation of the decision. By doing that, the supreme court decision which currently applies only to DC and the Federal Government would, by extension, apply to the states. Incorporation allows the 14th amendment to come into play if a state violates the civil rights of a US citizen.

It was incorporation that allowed Eisenhower to send federal troops to Arkansas to enforce the civil rights laws. Heller, properly incorporated, would allow the executive to use force against states that violated the 2nd amendment rights of citizens. The 2nd amendment is (as it always has been) a civil right and all that implies.

Incorporation is inevitable, but a right delayed is a right denied. So the NRA filed against Chicago at 9:15 AM, minutes after the Supreme Court handed down the decision. They were ready to go. 

I have to admit that after generations of abuse by jack booted thugs from various government agencies under various unconstitutional pretexts, the idea of law abiding citizens being escorted into a gun show at McCormick Place in Chicago by U.S. Marshalls appeals to me.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Aren't you the same Jack McCullough that said, "I also think it's irresponsible to attack the decision based on news reports instead of on the content of the decision."?
> 
> And now; you are quoting Slate? :thumbs-up:


I'm neither attacking nor praising the decision. What I am doing--stay with me here--is responding to Turkey's claim set forth here:

_Funny that no one even thought this one up until the 1970s. It's a ridiculous argument that didn't even get a single vote on the Supreme Court._

Now if you go back and read what I posted, it is a statement that another legal scholar, whom I am not familiar with, that this collective right theory has been discussed and upheld in some 40 cases since the Supremes decided Miller. I don't know what those cases are, but if this statement by Professor Spitzer is true, it likely negates Turkey's claim that this argument was invented in the 1970's.

And while we're at it, in the two threads on this topic I haven't stated an opinion about this decision.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> "Justification clauses" were extremely common at the time, and were understood to not impose any restrictions whatsoever on the right that followed. https://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm


Do many other examples in the Bill of Rights come to mind?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> What Jack keeps missing is the distinction between State restrictions and Federal restrictions. I don't think Conservatives need to play that game. The 2nd Amendment prohibits federal gun control, but not state gun control.


I don't "keep missing" anything. There is nothing in the text of the Second Amendment that limits its scope to the federal government. "Shall not be infringed" vs. "Congress shall make no law".

I suspect that most of your ideological allies on this point would dispute your claim that under the Second Amendment states are free to enact any restrictions on gun laws they want, up to and including prohibition.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> What does, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" mean to you?"
> 
> I suppose the argument could go both ways - maybe this is what it was a 5-4 decision. And as far as I can tell it was a political decision. Just as Bush Gore was (conservatives are all for state's rights except when state's rights get in the way of a Republican President) and just as Raich was (the Commerce Clause limits the power of the federal government, except when it is used to regulate pot gown in one's own back yard). Conservatives are just as political as liberals. Except conservatives claim they are not and that liberals are "activists." They all seem pretty political to me.


First, it depends on whether the clause is viewed as (i) dependent and limiting or (ii) independent and explicative. Both grammar and history suggest the latter. In other words, both grammatical construction as well as historical context indicate that this language serves as an expressed rationale for the right, but does not constrain or limit the right acknowledged.

Second, I don't own a gun, have no interest in owning a gun, and favor, with reservations, increased hand gun regulation. But that was not the question before the Court. Scalia got the constitutional reasoning right notwithstanding my own policy preferences. Same goes for Alito's dissent in the child rape/death penalty case. I oppose the death penalty except in rare cases involving prison murder or gang type murders ordered from prison. But Louisiana's law is not unconstitutional -- just bad policy in my view. I can distinguish between my policy preferences and the constitution. That is why I'm a conservative.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I'm neither attacking nor praising the decision. What I am doing--stay with me here--is responding to Turkey's claim set forth here:
> 
> _Funny that no one even thought this one up until the 1970s. It's a ridiculous argument that didn't even get a single vote on the Supreme Court._
> 
> ...





jackmccullough said:


> I don't "keep missing" anything. There is nothing in the text of the Second Amendment that limits its scope to the federal government. "Shall not be infringed" vs. "Congress shall make no law".
> 
> I suspect that most of your ideological allies on this point would dispute your claim that under the Second Amendment states are free to enact any restrictions on gun laws they want, up to and including prohibition.


That you are not criticizing is clearly not the point. You are quoting an article, quoting the decision rather than quoting the decision the same as me.

You may have a point though. I was quoting an AP news item and apparently you are now claiming you were quoting an editorial?

You are the one that made an issue of it and now you are doing it. If you can't walk the talk perhaps you should find a new problem to complain about?

Do you know anything of history or do you just live in the moment? Do you have any idea why these are "Amendments?"

To say my ideological allies wouldn't also agree that the Constitution doesn't grant rights is just stupid. Someone might think that, but they would not be my ideological ally.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> Same goes for Alito's dissent in the child rape/death penalty case. I oppose the death penalty except in rare cases involving prison murder or gang type murders ordered from prison.


That's a very interesting policy position. That makes sense. Even if I disagree; that's the first policy someone that does not support the death penalty more broadly has made that seems logical to me. Everything else seems to hold some contradiction.

I could go for Life (if it really meant Life) and something like that. As long as they were dead or *never* got out. The major problem I have is these lying, bleeding heart therapists that claim they can rehabilitate them. It's not possible by the profession's own standards and they know it. Most of the good therapists have been driven out because they can't conscience the lie. Therapists that ok the release of these people should be locked up when they repeat an offense IMHO.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I could go for Life (if it really meant Life) and something like that. As long as they were dead or *never* got out. QUOTE]
> 
> Another important consideration: many prosecutors believe, including some who oppose the death penalty, that the only reason "life without parole" is even an option in many jurisdictions is because of the death penalty. Take the death penalty off the table, and life without parole could follow. Make no mistake: many of the same people who see the death penalty as ipso facto cruel, believe that a life sentence without any hope of parole is almost as cruel. These people are happy to support the latter as a means to eliminate the former, but once the former is eliminated they will most certainly target the latter.
> 
> I still generally disfavor the death penalty. I'm just realistic as to the competing considerations.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> Do many other examples in the Bill of Rights come to mind?


So, there were hundreds of other rights declared in the same way at the same time as the second amendment. But none in the bill of rights, and that would prove...?

Anyway, there is at least one similar prefatory clause in the Constitution, albeit in the powers of Congress, rather than in the limitations on Cogress...



> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;


Try contesting a copyright on the grounds that the work it protects is not scientific or a "useful art"! Hahah.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

That example is great, by the way, because it's much more amenable to being interpreted as limiting,

"*To* promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, *by* securing . . . ."

Compare that with the 2nd amendment:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

And yet, no one, nowhere actually argues that the former is a limitation.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> I'm neither attacking nor praising the decision. What I am doing--stay with me here--is responding to Turkey's claim set forth here:
> 
> _Funny that no one even thought this one up until the 1970s. It's a ridiculous argument that didn't even get a single vote on the Supreme Court._
> 
> ...


The "collective right" folks no doubt got some inspiration from the Miller decision, but only because it mentions "keep and bear arms" and "militia" in the same paragraph. You haven't been able to articulate any other way that Miller supports it.

The reason is, of course, that the "collective right" nonsense scholarship was not intended to support Miller. It was concocted to support the early circuit decisions that say "no militia, no right." But those did not articulate a "collective rights" argument in the same form that's been advanced since the 1970s.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> ksinc said:
> 
> 
> > I could go for Life (if it really meant Life) and something like that. As long as they were dead or *never* got out.
> ...


Thanks. I definitely couldn't go there. I really think these types of positions are going to increase the number of people taking the law into their own hands.

I actually know of a former therapist that became a hit man killing pedophiles because of what he learned about their "remorse." His parents were both therapists and they took one of my Dad's classes on ethics in behavioral therapy for CEU.

BTW while your "quoting" is proper HTML-ese it doesn't work on this board. You have to go ahead and put in the full ending tag "[/quote] ". It should be correct, but I think it's part of the board's security that it does not.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> I just can't help but notice the series of typical posts by Pedantic Turkey that illustrates his method of argumentation.
> 
> First, here's what he says in Post 69:
> 
> ...


I already explained it, didn't I? The SC quoted Jefferson's letter, but not for the same purpose. If you've got a case with a great rule of law in it, and one dubious proposition unrelated to that rule... and you cite the case for the dubious proposition and say, "look how many other decisions cite this case!" without mentioning that they have nothing to do with your dubious rule... that's more than a bit dishonest, isn't it?

And it would certainly be silly for me to say that "separation of church and state" in the "sword" version originated in the 1940s. Way too many people in other countries pushed the same idea--you know--Robespierre, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, whoever was behind the mass executions of clergy in Spain, etc., etc.

But to say that it begins with the establishment clause, instead of with heads rolling in France, is, again, downright dishonest.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

ksinc said:


> BTW while your "quoting" is proper HTML-ese it doesn't work on this board. You have to go ahead and put in the full ending tag "


 ". It should be correct, but I think it's part of the board's security that it does not.[/QUOTE]

Thanks. Actually, all I do his hit "quote" and edit intending to keep the "[/quote]" on each end, but apparently I do this imperfectly.

See!!! I suspect that the software just read your quoted bracketed item as ending the quote. But it does highlight my general incompetence in these matters.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> ". It should be correct, but I think it's part of the board's security that it does not.


Thanks. Actually, all I do his hit "quote" and edit intending to keep the "[/quote]" on each end, but apparently I do this imperfectly.

See![/quote]

Ha! Saboteur!!! :devil:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The entire issue of 'gun control' is laughable. We can't even keep a pregnant latino from crossing our border and you people think a small, readilly concealed handgun, one representing a total number of @ 7 firearms for every man,woman and child in the USA is going to be legislated?If firearms were made illegal tommorow, I garantee a few broken airguns and grandfather's damascus barreled fowler will be turned in. I also know millions of firearms will simply go to ground. At that point we will see who truly believes in the full measure of our constitution,as the redcoats, er digital cammie clad troops begin house sweeps, at least those who haven't lost their castle because society cannot concentrate on the ancient causes for firearms in the first place.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> I just can't help but notice the series of typical posts by Pedantic Turkey that illustrates his method of argumentation.


You know, you ought to talk about other peoples' "method of argumentation." You've got the Miller decision right in front of you, but instead of citing it to support your proposition, you cite some newspaper editorial.

Show me where the Miller Court even contemplates a "collective right." You can't! Because it's simply not there. But you people, and I see you a lot-- the scummy, dishonest types--if a case doesn't support your proposition, and you know it-- you cite someone else who merely asserts that the case does!

I think every time a lawyer does this, the Court he's before ought to take one of his digits.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

For the best and most scholarly essay on the proper scope of the Second Amendment see the following: https://www.guncite.com/journals/vanalful.html

Wm Van Alstyne (or "V A" as my Duke Law School classmates used to call him ) is a rare and admirable man. He is a liberal and a scholar, but first and foremost a scholar.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> The entire issue of 'gun control' is laughable. We can't even keep a pregnant latino from crossing our border and you people think a small, readilly concealed handgun, one representing a total number of @ 7 firearms for every man,woman and child in the USA is going to be legislated?If firearms were made illegal tommorow, I garantee a few broken airguns and grandfather's damascus barreled fowler will be turned in. I also know millions of firearms will simply go to ground. At that point we will see who truly believes in the full measure of our constitution,as the redcoats, er digital cammie clad troops begin house sweeps, at least those who haven't lost their castle because society cannot concentrate on the ancient causes for firearms in the first place.


And; "THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!" YEE HAW! :devil:


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> For the best and most scholarly essay on the proper scope of the Second Amendment see the following: https://www.guncite.com/journals/vanalful.html
> 
> Wm Van Alstyne (or "V A" as my Duke Law School classmates used to call him ) is a rare and admirable man. He is a liberal and a scholar, but first and foremost a scholar.


Van Alstyne! He's at W&M now (though I missed out on having his Con Law class). He's pretty much awesome. Did anybody call him VA to his face? They sure don't here at W&M, and I'd think if someone did they'd be in for a butt-whooping by a man in his 70s. I don't know that I'd call him a liberal though. More just someone who understands that we have rights.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

As an interesting aside, Guncite and other 2nd-amendment activist groups are blocked by my web filter at work. Not the Brady bunch, though.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> As an interesting aside, Guncite and other 2nd-amendment activist groups are blocked by my web filter at work. Not the Brady bunch, though.


Hahaha. My dad's work does the opposite. Fox News, A-OK, Huffington Post...not so much.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

ksinc said:


> That's a very interesting policy position. That makes sense. Even if I disagree; that's the first policy someone that does not support the death penalty more broadly has made that seems logical to me. Everything else seems to hold some contradiction.
> 
> I could go for Life (if it really meant Life) and something like that. As long as they were dead or *never* got out. The major problem I have is these lying, bleeding heart therapists that claim they can rehabilitate them. It's not possible by the profession's own standards and they know it. Most of the good therapists have been driven out because they can't conscience the lie. Therapists that ok the release of these people should be locked up when they repeat an offense IMHO.


In the Louisiana child rape opinion, this would seem to be one of those rare situations where every interested party gets what they want.

Those that oppose the death penalty are vindicated.

Those that feel that the death penalty by lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment are vindicated.

Those that feel that a lethal injection is disproportionate punishment for the crime of raping a child are vindicated.

The family of the child, and those that worry about therapists claiming to have "rehabilitated" the person convicted of the crime realize what the life expectancy of the criminal is, once he enters the penal system.

Child molesters that enter the penal system have a life expectancy of a couple of weeks. Instead of being sedated, and then given a lethal injection, the guilty party will probably bleed out on the shower floor, after being castrated, without anesthesia, with a sharpened toothbrush handle.

Something for everyone.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

marlinspike said:


> Hahaha. My dad's work does the opposite. Fox News, A-OK, Huffington Post...not so much.


It's apparently a default setting.



> *Test Results *
> 
> ​ *
> is in our list and categorized as Weapons
> ...


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Liberty Ship said:


> I was interested in the ACLU's reaction. They have once and for all showed their true colors. Many of had hoped that if the 2nd was ever adjucated they would snap out of it...The mask is off the ACLU.


The ACLU has always consistently upheld the whole Bill of Rights for everyone, except the 2nd Amendment. That's been their contradictory sore spot since their inception. Yes, it would have been nice in this case for them to have come out 100% for all the BofR but they stuck to over a century of tradition and remain twitchy about this matter.

Having followed their activities for many years I don't see this as any kind of final showing of colors or unmasking but rather a continued demonstration of being totally consistent with a peculiar inconsistency. :icon_smile:

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You didn't just say "since its inception," did you?

You do know that the ACLU was a transparent communist front back in "the day" right?

The best evidence is an article in some commie rag detailing the ACLU founder's trip to the Soviet Union. On the gulags for political prisoners, he basically said, "well, I don't like having to do it, but you can't talk everyone into communism!"


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Here's the quote:

https://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/blog/baldwin.pdf



> I saw in the Soviet Union many opponents of the regime. I visited a dozen prisons -- the political sections among them. I saw considerable of the work of the OGPU. I heard a good many stories of severity, even of brutality, and many of them from the victims. While I sympathized with personal distress I just could not bring myself to get excited over the suppression of opposition when I stacked it up against what I saw of fresh, vigorous expressions of free living by workers and peasants all over the land. And further, no champion of a socialist society could fail to see that some suppression was necessary to achieve it. It could not all be done by persuasion.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> For the best and most scholarly essay on the proper scope of the Second Amendment see the following: https://www.guncite.com/journals/vanalful.html
> 
> Wm Van Alstyne (or "V A" as my Duke Law School classmates used to call him ) is a rare and admirable man. He is a liberal and a scholar, but first and foremost a scholar.


Thank you for posting this link. It is a fine piece of writing.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> Van Alstyne! He's at W&M now (though I missed out on having his Con Law class). He's pretty much awesome. Did anybody call him VA to his face? They sure don't here at W&M, and I'd think if someone did they'd be in for a butt-whooping by a man in his 70s. I don't know that I'd call him a liberal though. More just someone who understands that we have rights.


Well, he was always quite approachable, but I don't think we were so impertinent as to call him VA to his face. In any case, now I call him Bill. I had an opportunity to chat with him in April, and we discussed the politicization of the acadamy, which distresses him greatly. I seriously doubt VA has ever voted for a Republican; he is a political liberal. But his legal scholarship is impeccably honest. For example, he is pro-choice on abortion but sees no constitutional warrant for elevating such a policy position to a constitutional right. I will always cherish him. Duke's loss was W&M's gain. I hope y'all let him enjoy his pipe.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Here's the quote:
> 
> https://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/blog/baldwin.pdf


From the category of things money can't buy: My Dad has a cross made out of barbed wire from one of those prisons. It was made in secret for use in Russian Orthodox chapel services until the fall of the Soviet Union. It was a gift from a "friend" of his that was in the prison and brought it out with him.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Well, it's okay that he suffered, because of all the joy communism brought to Russia.

...right?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Well, it's okay that he suffered, because of all the joy communism brought to Russia.
> 
> ...right?


The forum software must have a virus because your post was clearly garbled in translation.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

ksinc said:


> The forum software must have a virus because your post was clearly garbled in translation.


I'm pretty sure it was simple sarcasm, noting communism's tendency to excuse the terrible suffering of individuals under the pretext that it is necessary for the common good.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

It's not sarcasm; it's the argument the ACLU founder made in 1934, right after the Ukraine famines (FYI).

Well, it's sarcasm when I say it, anyway.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> Well, he was always quite approachable, but I don't think we were so impertinent as to call him VA to his face. In any case, now I call him Bill. I had an opportunity to chat with him in April, and we discussed the politicization of the acadamy, which distresses him greatly. I seriously doubt VA has ever voted for a Republican; he is a political liberal. But his legal scholarship is impeccably honest. For example, he is pro-choice on abortion but sees no constitutional warrant for elevating such a policy position to a constitutional right. I will always cherish him. Duke's loss was W&M's gain. I hope y'all let him enjoy his pipe.


I would agree that he has probably never voted for a Republican, but I'd say he's liberal like Locke, not liberal like Diane Feinstein.


----------

