SmarterthanYou
rebel
no, you're wrong.
Retired (Republican) Justice Stevens argues for repeal of Second Amendment
- Thread starter Nomad
- Start date
no, you're wrong.
Actually, how battle-ready the gun is, (IOW, how efficiently it kills people), is a primary criteria for 2nd Amendment protection . . . The gun must be of a type that is part of the ordinary military equipment or if its use could contribute to the common defense and if the arm is a type in common use at the time.
QFT.
The "state's right" and "militia right" interpretations sprung up in antebelum southern state courts with the sole intent to keep blacks disarmed.
Since Blacks were barred by the federal government from serving in the militia, it was a simple thing to just declare that any state right to keep and bear arms was just recognized in and reserved for that state's militia members.
These decisions and the laws that came from them were never intended to be impressed upon White citizens, they only operated on Black folks.
After the Civil War and after Free Blacks became citizens, these same states enacted Black Codes which disarmed Black citizens:
Section 1. Be it enacted, ... [t]hat no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States [G]overnment, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie-knife,. . . -- 1865 Miss. Laws 165 (Nov. 29, 1865).
Such laws led to the Congress disbanding the state militas of these states (because they were the brutal enforcers) and the ratification of the 14th Amendment so the states would be forced to respect the 2nd Amendment rights of Freemen.
The Congressional act of disbanding the state militas proves the individual right of Freemen was deemed more important than the supposed right of states to direct their militia free from federal interference. That no state ever claimed any 2nd Amendment "right" to repel this federal claim of authority over state militia powers, tells us that the "interpretation" that the 2nd only protects a "state's right" or a "militia right" is utter Bullshit.
/endthread.
sorry. fail on me. I did not even know what jury nullification is. I do now. sorry. again. please excuse me. I am for jury nullification. the stream of thought in my head was that the courts have become so lawless that it is necessary for duly commissioned officers under oath to wage war against the outlaws in robes with gavels. any better ? I am for freedom from gov. oppression at any and every level. I have stated that I will likely be murdered by the establishment tyrants for my instinctive belief system. of course I do fight tyranny with my testimonies, for now. I hope I never must take up arms. / I don't want to, but I will if I have to.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
it's why the one time i got to serve on a jury for a case of possession of marijuana, it was an instant not guilty from me.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Let's deconstruct the three parts of this.
1. 'A well regulated Militia' - That is citizens with swords, guns, artillery, ships, etc, who are in contact with one another, train, are regulated by the government, and are ready and able to muster.
2. 'being necessary to the security of a free State' - In order to protect the nation and stand in because there was to be no standing army. There was no standing army until WWI era.
3. 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' - Fairly clear. This is the only part the NRA cares about or wants people to understand.
It is the second part which is most widely misunderstood, or just plain forgotten about. The ability of individuals to protect themselves from government tyranny is not necessary to the security of the nation.
Despite all the voices claiming the 2nd is to protect oneself from the government, the 2nd does not say that. Many wish it did, and pretend that's what it said, but it doesn't say that.
They could have written that.
They could have said:
'In order for the people to defend themselves from a tyrannical government, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
This is what gun rights advocates often believe the 2nd means. But it simply doesn't. It would have been easy for the forefathers to word it this way. They had full use of the English language. But they didn't. Because that isn't what they intended.
Stevens is right.
Correct. It is the body of the Constitution that does that, the part that grants the federal government its powers.
The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers, powers that We the People have granted to government so it can perform certain duties We the People have placed on it. The power to declare war and raise and support an army and navy (including powers to acquire, possess and deploy the weapons of wide scale / indiscriminate warfare) have been surrendered by We the People. Such is the nature of federal supremacy and preemption.
Incredibly, (given the number of times this point is raised) this principle is plainly evident in the Constitution as it pertains to weapons of war owned by private citizens. The most devastating weapon of the day were armed ships owned by Privateers but once the Revolutionary War was over, control over the ownership, maintenance and use of these weapons was granted to Congress in Art I, § 8, cl. 11. The same principle behind that grant of power can be applied to modern laws on citizens owning modern weapons of open, indiscriminate warfare like missiles, fighter jets and yes, even nuclear submarine with nuke-tipped ICBM's . . .
So, these intermingled principles of the Constitution of conferred powers and retained rights demands that the powers / interests that We the People have surrendered we can no longer claim as a right. Of course, that also means that everything that We the People have NOT conferred, we retain and the federal government can not claim any power to restrain . . . And yes, those interests are more commonly refered to as "rights" . . .
SmarterthanYou
rebel
close, minus the bolded part.
wrong. A 'free state' referred to the state of being free and nothing else. the militia clause in the constitution provides for arming, training, and calling the militia up for service.
maybe.
it is the absolute height of stupidity to believe that the framers would write an amendment that guarantees nothing but service to a government that can regulate their arms after having just won indpendence from a government that tried to regulate their arms.
evince
Truthmatters
there is no need to do so
other countries have guns and don't have our murder rates
its not the second that is the problem
I would never vote to repeal the 2nd
Any superficial reading of the writings of the times would divest you of this thinking -- completely and without and chance of ever returning.
The Federalist 46 is a good one to start with. Madison addresses the fear that a regular army could be raised, in full devotion to a national ruler and then threaten the liberties of the people. He said:
"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."
Madison says that each soldier would be "opposed" by 17 armed citizens in 1788. Interestingly the ratios hold pretty steady today. 320 million "total souls", a "standing army" of just under 3 million active duty and reserve military, and an armed citizenry numbering about 80 million. It seems today, given the expanded demographic for the right to arms, each active duty and reservist is "opposed" by 27 armed citizens.
Superfreak
Verified User
We are a society of 350 million people in a country that spans 3,000 miles from coast to coast and a good couple of thousand miles from border to border.
Anyone who thinks there is something that can be done to change our violent culture is dreaming.
Decisive governmental action is the only thing that will put an end to this shit.
Our only chance lies in the possibility of enough voters getting fed up enough with it, to vote Republicans far enough out of power that they can no longer stand in the way of sanity and reason.
Your argument is shredded when you understand that because the right to arms is not granted, given, created or established by the 2nd Amendment, the right to arms does not depend IN ANY MANNER on the words of the 2nd Amendment.
SCOTUS has been boringly consistent -- never wavering -- from that principle for going on 150 years.
Why do you give such import and power to words that the right in no manner depends upon?
evince
Truthmatters
Superfreak
Verified User
so again... you run away from FACTS
Because you have not provided a clue about how you think the system should work. You obviously are willing to ignore the Constitution but cannot explain how the alternative would work.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Why should I appeal to a body that regularly shreds the document? It should appeal to the People.