Originally Posted by goober

In the Second Amendment, it says "A well regulated militia, etc."

Why would they put that there, if the only part that mattered was the second half of the sentence?

Originally Posted by EricOKC

Sure can. Can you answer a single question put to you?

More like INconsistent.

Slightly different though within the concept of the rights of a person and the powers of a government.

Government does not exist independently of people. Thats a fact son. Without the people granting powers to government (which may be rescinded at any time), government has no authority.

In our form of government, the state has no rights. None. Squat. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

And here again we see where your complete lack of understanding of the very topic you attempt to argue gets in the way.

Or perhaps you didnt know what you were talking about?

Well lets see, if our current form of government didnt exist, we wouldnt have recourse to the Bill of Rights. Yeah - that makes sense. It is also about as germane to the topic as suggesting if cars didnt exist, we wouldnt have the ability to drive one.

Now, back to reality...

No - it conforms to your flawed understanding of the English language.

This is where our conversation breaks down. You dont understand the language being used, and yet you're trying to debate semantics on that same language. Good luck.

Originally Posted by JDD

The Supreme Court held over 100 years ago that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states. Presser v. Illinois, 116 US) (The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government ...").



In Quilici v. Morton Grove, 695 F. 2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), the 7th Cir. did not question the legitimacy of Presser, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

From the 7th Cir. opinion:

"As we have noted, the parties agree that Presser is controlling, but disagree as to what Presser held. It is difficult to understand how appellants can assert that Presser supports the theory that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right which the state cannot regulate when the Presser decision plainly states that "the Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this . . . means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National government. . . ." As the district court explained in detail, appellants' claim that Presser supports the proposition that the second amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms is not subject to state restriction is based on dicta quoted out of context. This argument borders on the frivolous and does not warrant any further consideration.

Apparently recognizing the inherent weakness of their reliance on Presser, appellants urge three additional arguments to buttress their claim that the second amendment applies to the states. They contend that: (1) Presser is no longer good law because later Supreme Court cases incorporating other amendments into the fourteenth amendment have effectively overruled Presser, (2) Presser is illogical, and (3) the entire Bill of Rights has been implicitly incorporated into the fourteenth amendment to apply to the states..

None of these arguments has merit. ..."

As it stands, the 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated into the 14th Amendment to apply to the states.

While the current Supreme Court will probably not rule on the issue, Scalia has stated that "there is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant. Of course, properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states."

That's from "A Matter of Interpretation", a book of essays/speeches by Lawrence Tribe, Scalia and others. The quote is from note 13 on page 137.

Currently, the states are not bound by the 2d Amendment. Unless Scalia doesn't believe what he wrote, I don't see how you get 5 Justices to find that it does apply to the states. Even assuming that Thomas, Roberts and Alitio found that it applies to the states, Scalia would only make it 4.

Personally, even if it took a case that addresses the issue directly, I don't see the SC rendering a decision that would effectively overturn decades of state restrictions on gun ownership and possession.

Originally Posted by DHard3006

No where can the gun haters show you where any law, edit, or regulation states a person must be in a militia to bear arms. Even that there militia act the gun haters keep spewing about does not state a person must be in a militia to bear arms.
The militia lie is just that a lie. Why? Simple because the gun haters want to regulate the right to bear arms.
How will the gun haters do this regulating?
Simple.
Gun bans.
Ammunition bans.
Storage requirements.
Excessive taxes on guns and ammunition.
And the evil gun free zones bs. You know gun free zones where only criminals have guns and the law abiding citizens is just someone to shoot and kill.

Originally Posted by Dogsbody

Could an American own a ulcear weapon for his personal defense?

Originally Posted by Publius

Here is a nasty little trick I like to play on people who think the 2d amdmt is a "collective right"...

There is an old principle of statutory construction which says that you read the same word, the same way, throughout a statute (or in this case, a constitution). Makes sense right? Imagine if you had to look up the meaning of a word for every section of a statute, ugh! So you use the same meaning for the same word....

Lets see what happens with the words "the people" in the Bill of Rights.

FIRST AMENDMENT
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of THE PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A right of states? If those STATES, or that COLLECTIVE, would keep their voices down, and stop saying disturbing things, I could get some work done. Kind of looks like an indiviudual right to me.

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

Hmm...is it the right of states that is being protected here? A collective right against unreasonable searches? I'd have to say that this protects the right of each INDIVIDUAL...wouldn't you?

NINTH AMENDMENT
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by THE PEOPLE.

States? No way. Gotta be talking about PEOPLE!!!

TENTH AMENDMENT - and possibly most revealing...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or THE PEOPLE.

Wait...founders...are you saying that THE PEOPLE does not mean the same thing as the RESPECTIVE STATES? You used them disjunctively here. Why? Are PEOPLE individuals? I guess maybe that makes sense...

SECOND 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.

There it is again! Those goddamn people! they have a right to keep and bear arms. It's necessary to the security of a free state!

Could it be so simple?




Yes. I call it reading. Sound it out S..L..O..W..L..Y

Originally Posted by danielpalos

I A well regulated militia, is not a mob or anarchy of individuals.

Originally Posted by DHard3006

No but the 2nd amend does say the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say the right of the militia.
And no where does any law, edit, or regulation say that a person must be in a militia to bear arms.
The only reason gun haters chant the militia lie is because the gun haters want to regulate the right to bear arms.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Gun lover's still, love to ignore the well regulated militia part of the Second Amendment.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Gun lover's still, love to ignore the well regulated militia part of the Second Amendment. That the several states have the delegated authority to regulate the militia, is in Section 8 of the constitution. Since anyone who keeps and bears arms, can be in the militia (assuming adult status), it can be inferred, that people who keep and bear arms can be regulated, as in a militia of people who keep and bear arms; in accordance with the powers delegated to the states in Section 8 of our constitution.

Originally Posted by DHard3006

You can chant that all you want gun hater. No one is ignoring the militia part of the 2nd amend. The gun haters want to force a lie upon Americans that the gun haters cannot prove. Just produce one edit, law, or regulation that states a person must be in a militia to bear arms.

Originally Posted by mpd8488

No, that is not correct.

The actions of a militia can be regulated, but not individuals. A militia is the body that is allowed to be regulated, but individuals still have the right to bear arms outside of militia activities. Every single right we have is individual and the governments regulation on the militia has absolutely no bearing on the individual right to own firearms.

You are also making assertions based on the language usage in the constitution that are simply incorrect. Judging by your frequent use of comma splices you need to refresh your grammar and usage skills.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Gun lovers keep missing the point.