Fundamentally flawed argument.

The Constitution does not grant rights to people. The Constitution prevents the government from infringing on certain rights the people already have.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Have you read any of the writings of the founding fathers?

I could post numerous quotes from the founding fathers on the right to bear arms.

Have you read these quotes?

Here is a partial list of BOGUS quotes which should be avoided...

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

Here is a good collection of information on the 2nd amendment...

GunCite: gun control and Second Amendment issues

Any person who studies this topic must come to the only logical conclusion possible. The right to bear arms is an individual right.

The only people that don't come to this conclusion are people who have not bothered to research the topic.

PERIOD.

Fine. The Constitution does not state "the right to eat cream cheese shall not be infringed". That people aren't having their bagels and crab rangoon seized do not imply that the Constitution includes a protection of such a right.

I've seen the arguments from both sides, from source material, and frankly, to claim that anyone holding a position contrary to your own has not done the research shows how faulty your knowledge of the topic is. You cherry-pick the comments that you feel support your position, then claim that anything else is lies.

Justice Scalia’s Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation Is Just An Excuse For His Judicial Activism


In the excerpt below, from the U. S. Supreme Court's opinion in the case of Heller v. D. C, authored by Justice Scalia, the notorious right wing activist announces his intention to follow a rule of constitutional construction which dictates that the words of the Constitution should be understood in the sense they were normally and ordinarily used. However, the first source he consults is an obscure treatise, written seventy five years after the Second Amendment was ratified, which he apparently believes allows him to "rephrase" the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment provides: “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.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731
(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the
founding generation.
The two sides in this case have set out very different
interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s
dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the
right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with
militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1
(STEVENS, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it
protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected
with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within
the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,
“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A
Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585,
p. 394 (1867);

It appears that Scalia's Second Rule of Constitutional Construction is: If the lawmaker's words met with disapproval, the section of the Constitution being interpreted may be rephrased upon the slightest pretext.

__________________
I find it appalling that Justice Antonin Scala, in his dissenting opinion in McCreary County v. ACLU, constructed his model of "the relationship between church and state" in America without even considering the actual text of the Constitution. How do incompetents like him get on the U. S. Supreme Court?

Because individuals with the right to bear arms made up the militia.

__________________
"Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves." ~ Lord Byron

Yeah, I think that is what I said (he has to meet certain criteria in order to have that right).

__________________
Mr. Obama, please release the UFO files!

No, you are still wrong.

You don't have to meet criteria for a right.

What criteria do you have to meet for free speech?

__________________
"Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves." ~ Lord Byron

Not here in California, he doesn't. There's a state assault weapons ban in place, and according to the recent Supreme Court ruling, that ban is consistent with the Second Amendment. (It was already ruled OK by California's Supreme Court re the California Constitution, so that isn't a problem either.)

The state of california may have an awb - but that has nothing to do with full auto weapons manufactured before 1986 - which can legally be owned and transfered as an NFA weapon.

ps - there is no such thing as an assault weapon...

__________________
"Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves." ~ Lord Byron

OK, so then the insane, felons and toddlers aren't "people" somehow?

How can we so blithely infringe their rights? Schizophrenics, Felons, 6 year olds, all should be able to buy full auto FN-90's in the gun aisle at Safeway. The Constitution says so.

The methodology of interpretation used by Justice Antonin Scalia in the Heller opinion is probably not that which the lawmakers intended for him to use. Scalia states that he will interpret the text of the Second Amendment according to the "normal and ordinary" meanings that would been given it by "ordinary citizens in the founding generation."

Anyone knowledgeable of the common law in America in the late 1700's knows that it was well established law that the goal or object of interpreting laws was "the will of the legislator", not the understanding of "ordinary citizens." (See Blackstone's commentary on the "interpretation of laws" in his famous Commentaries on the Laws of England.)

Thomas Jefferson was a lawyer and would have known what the object of interpreting a law was when the Second Amendment was made. He was preaching it in 1812 to the Governor of Virginia.

The... maxims of the bench, to seek the will of the legislator and his words only, are proper... for judicial government.

--Thomas Jefferson to James Barbour, 1812. ME 13:128

__________________
I find it appalling that Justice Antonin Scala, in his dissenting opinion in McCreary County v. ACLU, constructed his model of "the relationship between church and state" in America without even considering the actual text of the Constitution. How do incompetents like him get on the U. S. Supreme Court?

If someone is insane to the point they are institutionalized against their will, then due process has been observed and we most certainly CAN infringe their rights. If they are not institutionalized against their will, and are considered capable of functioning in society without a full time guardian, they can and should be considered the same as anyone else.

Felons, while in jail, OBVIOUSLY have had their rights infringed, but again, since by due process, it is perfectly fine and legal. Remember, they chose to commit the crime. Once they have served their sentence, their rights should be restored - and are in many states.

6-year olds are minors, and therefore subject to parental control in terms of what material they can acquire. If their parents decide they are mature enough to own a full auto firearm, that is their decision. Incidentally, 6 year olds are legally allowed to use firearms in the US.

Anything else you'd like to say to make yourself look like a fool?

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Those are illegal here, too.

In terms of the law, yes, there is -- it's defined as part of the legislation.

The point though is that the SCOTUS ruled that such weapons CAN be banned consistently with the Second Amendment (although simple handguns cannot). It also said that other forms of gun control, such as waiting periods, background checks, and gun registration, would also be constitutional.

I have the same ambivalent reaction to this ruling that I do to Roe v. Wade, and for the same reason: I like the result in both cases, but consider them bad law. And just to make things totally clear, I like this ruling not because it outlaws gun control but because it doesn't: because it explicitly states that reasonable gun control legislation is constitutional. The only thing it ruled unconstitutional is an extreme form that would be politically impossible in every state in the U.S. anyway.

Well, I could advocate we sell Thompsons to former schizophrenics so they'll be ready for the next time they forget their medication, but you just did that.

Or that we give parents full say as to whether their children carry arms. "Course I gave little Jimmy that Glock, schoolyard's a tough place for a second grader, but he showed them bullies. Teachers too."

And I take it you then support the wisdom of selling any arm whatsoever to any fully qualified citizen who desires it. Special on bazookas to Crips and Bloods who've not been arrested, show club colors for deep discounts.

The Constitution doesn't say "with the exception of felons, the insane and children" he Constitution says 'the people' and while they may be subject to whatever other restrictions we may place on them they are still 'people' in Alito's sense of the word and therefore entitled to have and use an atom bomb, according to that sacred document.

Indeed, how can the military now keep secret it's most advanced weaponry? They've been developed with taxpayer money, they're arms, the Constitution demands the public be given full access.

This may seem foolish, but those are the literal words.