Second Amendment Stupidity

A

Agnosticus_Caesar

Fuck You Too
Second Amendment Stupidity



It is NOT about self defense. It is NOT about the need for a militia. The need for a militia is a GIVEN. The SECOND AMENDMENT prevents legislative bodies from passing laws which infringe upon the right of EVERY citizen to keep and bear arms...period. Just as the rest of The Bill Of Rights places restrictions ON GOVERNMENT...not on THE PEOPLE.

The Bill of Rights came about because some people thought that if certain rights were not GUARANTEED, such rights would be INFRINGED upon. Others thought that such a "Bill of Rights" was unnecessary, as it is a given, that the government can only exercise such powers that are explicitly granted.

From day one, those who wanted The Bill of Rights, have been correct. Government has consistently overstepped the powers given to it.

Is there a good, partisan, answer to this? No. The bulk of both major parties are idiots, when it comes to this issue. I am disgusted, as I listen to the argument taking place in The Supreme Court. They argue about which partisan view makes more sense, when NEITHER makes even a BIT of sense.

The 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.

Allow me to break this down in a manner different than the partisans would espouse:

A militia is necessary to the security of a state. Doing a good job of REGULATING such a militia is necessary to keep such a state FREE. It is NECESSARY that the PEOPLE in such a state have the right to keep and bear weaponry similar to that of a common soldier, to ENSURE that such
a state REMAIN free, and that THE PEOPLE are not subjugated to dictatorship by force of arms.

This comes DIRECTLY from LOCKE'S philosophy that THE PEOPLE have the RIGHT to overthrow a corrupt government. We don't want a small group of crackpots causing too much of a problem for the government. Therefore, guaranteeing the average citizen the right to keep and bear the same manner of armament that the AVERAGE soldier would have BOTH ensures that a small group of morons who are pissed off, and blame the government, cannot cause TOO much trouble... AND, IF a SIGNIFICANT portion of the populace has a REAL reason to rebel, they would have a fighting chance to overthrow a TRULY, and IRRECONCILABLY, corrupt government.

So, what does this all mean, when broken down? Currently, the common US soldier carries SMALL ARMS. The term "Machine Gun" shouldn't even be mentioned...unfortunately, too many idiots with an addendum to their name can't seem to say anything else.

The M16 was originally "fully automatic". It was eventually restricted to "Three Round Burst". To be accurate, it can be classified as "Small Arms", regardless of it's rate of fire.

The Second Amendment was INTENDED to prevent government from denying the average citizen the right to keep and bear armament similar to the average militiaman...BECAUSE, such a right prevents said militia from becoming a force for despotism.

The Second Amendment does not guarantee you to own a Stinger Missile. It doesn't guarantee you an ICBM. It guarantees that you have the right to own a weapon similar to the average militiaman, so as to keep said militia from enforcing despotism. Currently, that means what the military describes as "small arms".

The argument currently being taken up in The Supreme Court, is a joke. Owning a handgun is the right of every American. If you think otherwise, you don't understand our Constitution.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
Second Amendment Stupidity



It is NOT about self defense. It is NOT about the need for a militia. The need for a militia is a GIVEN. The SECOND AMENDMENT prevents legislative bodies from passing laws which infringe upon the right of EVERY citizen to keep and bear arms...period. Just as the rest of The Bill Of Rights places restrictions ON GOVERNMENT...not on THE PEOPLE.

The Bill of Rights came about because some people thought that if certain rights were not GUARANTEED, such rights would be INFRINGED upon. Others thought that such a "Bill of Rights" was unnecessary, as it is a given, that the government can only exercise such powers that are explicitly granted.

From day one, those who wanted The Bill of Rights, have been correct. Government has consistently overstepped the powers given to it.

Is there a good, partisan, answer to this? No. The bulk of both major parties are idiots, when it comes to this issue. I am disgusted, as I listen to the argument taking place in The Supreme Court. They argue about which partisan view makes more sense, when NEITHER makes even a BIT of sense.

The 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.

Allow me to break this down in a manner different than the partisans would espouse:

A militia is necessary to the security of a state. Doing a good job of REGULATING such a militia is necessary to keep such a state FREE. It is NECESSARY that the PEOPLE in such a state have the right to keep and bear weaponry similar to that of a common soldier, to ENSURE that such
a state REMAIN free, and that THE PEOPLE are not subjugated to dictatorship by force of arms.

This comes DIRECTLY from LOCKE'S philosophy that THE PEOPLE have the RIGHT to overthrow a corrupt government. We don't want a small group of crackpots causing too much of a problem for the government. Therefore, guaranteeing the average citizen the right to keep and bear the same manner of armament that the AVERAGE soldier would have BOTH ensures that a small group of morons who are pissed off, and blame the government, cannot cause TOO much trouble... AND, IF a SIGNIFICANT portion of the populace has a REAL reason to rebel, they would have a fighting chance to overthrow a TRULY, and IRRECONCILABLY, corrupt government.

So, what does this all mean, when broken down? Currently, the common US soldier carries SMALL ARMS. The term "Machine Gun" shouldn't even be mentioned...unfortunately, too many idiots with an addendum to their name can't seem to say anything else.

The M16 was originally "fully automatic". It was eventually restricted to "Three Round Burst". To be accurate, it can be classified as "Small Arms", regardless of it's rate of fire.

The Second Amendment was INTENDED to prevent government from denying the average citizen the right to keep and bear armament similar to the average militiaman...BECAUSE, such a right prevents said militia from becoming a force for despotism.

The Second Amendment does not guarantee you to own a Stinger Missile. It doesn't guarantee you an ICBM. It guarantees that you have the right to own a weapon similar to the average militiaman, so as to keep said militia from enforcing despotism. Currently, that means what the military describes as "small arms".

The argument currently being taken up in The Supreme Court, is a joke. Owning a handgun is the right of every American. If you think otherwise, you don't understand our Constitution.
Click to expand...
QFT! Where the fuck were you on the 18th when this was argued before the Supreme Court? Scalia through his question actually asks questions which lead you to believe that this is the reason the right, THE PRE-EXISTENT right, to keep and bear arms existed. However, I was hesitate to say that the founders did not think that a family settling the northwest territory did not have the right to defend themselves with private weapons. I believe that if you told them they and others did not have the right of self defense, through the use of firearms, they would have laughed you out of the hall.
 
The "self defense" argument is a Red Herring. We have the right to keep and bear arms to protect us from corrupt government. I am NOT saying we cannot also use them for self defense. I am saying that self defense is not THE argument as to whether or not we have said right.
 
Socrtease said:
QFT! Where the fuck were you on the 18th when this was argued before the Supreme Court? Scalia through his question actually asks questions which lead you to believe that this is the reason the right, THE PRE-EXISTENT right, to keep and bear arms existed. However, I was hesitate to say that the founders did not think that a family settling the northwest territory did not have the right to defend themselves with private weapons. I believe that if you told them they and others did not have the right of self defense, through the use of firearms, they would have laughed you out of the hall.
Click to expand...

Who would pass a law that prevents reasonable self defense? Honestly, the constitution just doesn't say anything about self defense. All it talks about is gun rights. It doesn't specifically mention privacy either, but extending that same logic to self defense...

You see, you're trying to apply what you want the constitution to say, whenever at the convention, no one probably even thought of a "right to self defense" because it just isn't that much thought of.
 
The well regulated 'militia' referred to in the 2nd amendment is obviously referencing the Army that fought the revolution, private citizens coming to aid the nation with their private firearms. Also given the history of the time period, it's obvious the intent was to allow private firearms, so frontiersmen could protect themselves and their families. However I would add, that this is a specific protection, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, specific, making almost all gun regulation unconstitutional.
 
WRL said:
The well regulated 'militia' referred to in the 2nd amendment is obviously referencing the Army that fought the revolution, private citizens coming to aid the nation with their private firearms. Also given the history of the time period, it's obvious the intent was to allow private firearms, so frontiersmen could protect themselves and their families. However I would add, that this is a specific protection, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, specific, making almost all gun regulation unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Give rapists guns!
 
felons are not law abiding citizens...

[ame="http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wXqcAi83a-I&feature=dir"]YouTube - Why the D.C. Gun Ban Is Unconstitutional[/ame]
 
The amendment is. Court cases about it, are not.

The only other 2nd amendment case, was US v. Miller in 1939. Miller was a bank robber and bootlegger, who was charged under the then-new National Firearms Act of 1934, which charged a $200 tax on the sale of a $5 shotgun whose barrels were shorter than some limit (I believe 18"). Miller had never heard of the tax, and hadn't paid it.

Federal district court immediately found that the 1934 NFA violated the 2nd amendment, and ruled Miller innocent. The govt appealed directly to the Supreme Court. When he court date rolled around, Miller's lawyer couldn't find his client, and didn't want to expend the resources to prepare a Supreme Court case he probably wouldn't be paid for. So no one from the defense even showed up for the trial, and the govt. prosecution grabbed the opportunity to recite several flat lies into the record (2nd amendment protected only military-style weapons, shotguns weren't military weapons, etc.), which got rubber-stamped into an opinion since no one was there from the other side to debunk them. (Miller was found a week later, dead in a stream bed in Arkansas with four bullets in his chest, probably from some folks he had turned State's Evidence on for a bank robbery years before.)

The govt has carefully avoided any further Supreme Court cases on the 2nd amendment since then, unwilling to lose the huge windfall they got in the Miller case.

Since then, several appeals court cases on the 2nd have come to radically opposite conclusions about the right to keep and bear arms. The government has requested the Supreme Court not to take any of them, and it hasn't until now, with the DC v. Heller case on DC's handgun ban.

In Heller, the arguments were fairly well presented, and the best news was, this time both sides were argued. The Supremes will probably rule that the 2nd protects the right of individuals to own guns, regardless of military or militia association, and that DC's handgun ban is an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd. They might also rule that DC's law requiring long guns to be kept disassembled and locked, is also unconstitutional. The decision is expected in midsummer.

Though the meaning and intent of the 2nd amendment are clear to anyone who can read and write English, court cases on it are a long way from "settled". But hopefully that's about to change.

The 2nd amendment in modern language, would read:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
 
Last edited:
The Supreme court is debating the issue now, that should settle the legal wrangling about the true meaning, and they will more than likely lean far more on the individuals right. Robert's is going to be an outstanding Chief Justice.
 
WRL said:
The Supreme court is debating the issue now, that should settle the legal wrangling about the true meaning, and they will more than likely lean far more on the individuals right. Robert's is going to be an outstanding Chief Justice.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with the result that the Robert's court will reach, but the idea that they "will more than likely lean far more toward the individual's right" is not the norm for this court by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Dungheap said:
I don't disagree with the result that the Robert's court will reach, but the idea that they "will more than likely lean far more toward the individual's right" is not the norm for this court by any stretch of the imagination.
Click to expand...

Since they've only heard one other 2A case and decided that one the other way, technically you're correct. Hard to think of that as a "trend", though.

It's a miscarriage that has needed righting for a long time. I think it's about to get it.
 
I love my gun.

I do not want my neighbor to own a better one if he's a felon. I also don't want him owning a fully automatic weapon regardless of if he's a felon or not.
 
WRL said:
The Supreme court is debating the issue now, that should settle the legal wrangling about the true meaning, and they will more than likely lean far more on the individuals right. Robert's is going to be an outstanding Chief Justice.
Click to expand...
Did you read the oral arguments? The ONLY justice leaning towards a fundamental liberty interest was Scalia. Every other justice that I would consider friendly toward gun rights was willing to discuss a lower level of scrutiny. My bet is we get an individual rights ruling, but with intermediate scrutiny which means that they will say that regulations are ok so long as they are reasonably related to the harm sought to be avoided. I actually lean to them deciding that it is an individual right but that intermediate scrutiny applies and then request briefs to address the harm and if the restrictions are reasonable. The one thing I think to many people overlook is that ALL of the jusitices are Ivory Tower scholars with little or no real lawyering under their belt. The thought of the general populace owning handguns in DC probably scares the shit out of 8 out of the 9 justices with Scalia being the only hardcore strict scrutiny justice in the bunch.

Just as a side note, you might be interested to know that Thomas said narry a word during the oral arguments. Floors me that he is actually a justice.
 
Well I think we probably all can agree that felons don't need firearms, that would be a restriction, but a reasonable one, so I don't disagree they will side on the individuals right, with a few reasonable restrictions. But I disagree about the fully automatic statement also made, I believe that the 2nd Amendment allows law abiding citizens to own any firearm on par with the National Guard, to include fully automatic firearms. There are very few gun laws I would support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top