That it was 5-4, is Scary!

Okay, while you were writing post #80, I was editing my post #79 because I realized it was someone else, not you, who was using the exclusionary rule as evidence of judicial activism. For that misunderstanding, I apologize.

But you DID make two statements in which you wrote that the evidence justifies the search. You may not have meant it to be that way, but it is what you wrote.
 
Good Luck said:
Okay, while you were writing post #80, I was editing my post #79 because I realized it was someone else, not you, who was using the exclusionary rule as evidence of judicial activism. For that misunderstanding, I apologize.

But you DID make two statements in which you wrote that the evidence justifies the search. You may not have meant it to be that way, but it is what you wrote.
Click to expand...

Yes, early on I mistakingly worded it incorrectly once, and then amended my remarks in the next post, with the clarification I originally intended. The evidence does not justify the search, it confirms the probable cause, and the probable cause is the justification for the search.
 
Dixie said:
Yes, early on I mistakingly worded it incorrectly once, and then amended my remarks in the next post, with the clarification I originally intended. The evidence does not justify the search, it confirms the probable cause, and the probable cause is the justification for the search.
Click to expand...
Okay, that is much more accurate way of putting it than claiming "I never said that" when you did say it. It clears things up much better, and without the acrimony.

As to the original intent of this thread, the vote was close. But the fact is there are those who will continue to believe the idea that the first phrase of the 2nd amendment is more important than the first, and is justification for limiting the 2nd amendment when it comes to individuals. That has been a long standing belief in the intent and scope of the 2nd.

However, when the matter came to a head (which it had not for over 80 years) the majority opinion prevailed with the idea that the intent is reserved for the people, and the first phrase was used as the reason for the right to bear arms, not as a limiting factor for the right.

This kind of dichotomy will continue, and the prevailing opinion will, basically, depend on which philosophy held the power to appoint justices in immediately prior years. There are now two very distinct political philosophies who view the intent of the founders in two very different ways. Of course, both will find historical data and documents to back their stance because the same dichotomy existed during the founding of this nation. The real difference between then and now is the two sides back then worked to find common ground, and worked to compromise when no common ground could be found. Today both sides work toward the political power to dominate and force their view on the rest little to no room for working together.
 
But the fact is there are those who will continue to believe the idea that the first phrase of the 2nd amendment is more important than the first, and is justification for limiting the 2nd amendment when it comes to individuals. That has been a long standing belief in the intent and scope of the 2nd.
Click to expand...

Here is the thing, you can go back and read what Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin, Adams, Washington, and the rest of them had to say in their writings of the time. NONE of them EVER articulated the view adopted by the liberal left, post-WWII. They NEVER mentioned a limit on this individual freedom in any regard, and in fact, viewed it as one of our most important and sacred fundamental rights as individuals, just behind freedom of speech and religion.

The vote was 5-4... one vote away from essentially abolishing our 2nd Amendment rights. The Founding Fathers also NEVER intended the SCOTUS to strip our fundamental freedoms by judicial fiat. In fact, knowing that times would certainly change, they structured a method by which We The People could amend the Constitution. Liberal Socialists have slowly chipped away at this foundation, now we are on the brink of losing our freedom because people like yourself will excuse this atrocity and pretend you are being 'moderate' and understanding of their warped and twisted view. They have no right to do what they are doing, and if we don't wake up and recognize it, they will eventually chip away enough to destroy the freedoms we have. A couple more Liberal SCOTUS appointees, and we can kiss the entire Constitution goodbye, it won't mean a thing anymore.
 
Perhaps you should look at this from the other perspective. We have the current issue of terrorism to deal with, let's say someone brought a case before the court to challenge the 4th Amendment in the same way this case challenged the 2nd? What if the supporting argument was, law enforcement needs to be able to act quickly, and shouldn't be obligated to obtain any probable cause? What if the argument was, we can use a 'profile' method of identifying potential terrorists, therefore we should reinterpret this into the 4th Amendment? What if THAT vote were 5-4? Would it not be scary?

See... the thing is, it has nothing to do with my personal opinion or feelings, it is about what the Constitution says and means, and what liberal activist judges want to make it mean. If it were the other way around, if the judges were neocon activists trying to strip our 4th Amendment rights, I would be just as vehemently opposed! If right-wing pro-gun judges were trying to interpret the 2nd to say ALL Americans MUST carry a firearm, I would be just as vehemently opposed. My outrage here is over the 4-vote attempt to subvert our Constitutional rights, by an activist court!
 
I personally think that the decision should have been closer to 9-0 than 5-4.

I understand and am willing to accept that there are a variety of interpretations on some portions of the Constitution, but the 2nd Amendment is arguably the clearest language in the whole document.

If we're split 5-4 after 90 years of arguing about what the 2nd means, then we are in trouble.
 
Epicurus said:
I personally think that the decision should have been closer to 9-0 than 5-4.

I understand and am willing to accept that there are a variety of interpretations on some portions of the Constitution, but the 2nd Amendment is arguably the clearest language in the whole document.

If we're split 5-4 after 90 years of arguing about what the 2nd means, then we are in trouble.
Click to expand...


Exactly my point. There was absolutely no basis for the dissenting view. Our Founding Fathers thought our right to bear arms was essential, almost as essential as our freedom of speech and religion. There has never been any ambiguity about that. Through the years, we have broadened our restrictions and conditions on this freedom, and just as is the case with the rest of the Bill of Rights, reasonable restrictions or conditions may apply. Our fundamental right to bear arms, should never be in question.
 
Dixie said:
Exactly my point. There was absolutely no basis for the dissenting view. Our Founding Fathers thought our right to bear arms was essential, almost as essential as our freedom of speech and religion. There has never been any ambiguity about that. Through the years, we have broadened our restrictions and conditions on this freedom, and just as is the case with the rest of the Bill of Rights, reasonable restrictions or conditions may apply. Our fundamental right to bear arms, should never be in question.
Click to expand...
Ahhh, but define "reasonable". Ask 50 people to define "reasonable restrictions" and you will get 50 differing answers. Ask 50 people to define "reasonable restrictions" about each of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights and you will get 500 different answers.

For the second amendment, my opinion is an individual citizen should have the right to keep and bear any firearm that is carried and used by the common foot soldier of a standing army. Having the arms of a foot soldier of a standing army was the expectation of militia when the amendment was written, and I see no reason to change that expectation.

For those who are thinking to themselves (if such objections I've seen can be truly called thinking) "What about nuclear bombs", the firearms carried by the common soldier in a standing army would exclude, first, any explosive devices because they are not firearms. Second it would exclude things like RPG's and anything larger, since only soldiers specially trained and assigned to specific types of combat units deal carry and use RPGs, shoulder fired missiles, artillery, etc.

But the common infantry soldier does carry full auto weapons.

Now I also believe that for certain types of weapons (ie: anything full auto, and IMO, semi-auto sidearms) that licensing should be part of the process of attaining such a weapon. A citizen should be required to take and pass a training course focussed on proper use and safety. However, there should also be no restrictions (except the basic restrictions for violent criminals and felons still under jurisdiction, etc. that covers all firearms) controlling who may take a proper use course for a semi-auto or full auto license, and anyone who passes the course is automatically issued the appropriate license at cost (ie: whatever it costs to run the licensing bureau, divided by the average number of licenses issued per year.) I would suggest a blanket license for semi-auto sidearms, but a weapon-specific license for full auto. (For instance, a full-auto uzi handles very different from a full auto M-16, so the training experiences would also be different.)

I would be willing to bet the NRA would fall all over itself arranging to offer those courses nation wide for free or very little cost to the applicant. They already offer firearms safety and use courses nation wide. All they would need is a group of former (and current) military people experienced in training in infantry weapons.
 
Ahhh, but define "reasonable". Ask 50 people to define "reasonable restrictions" and you will get 50 differing answers. Ask 50 people to define "reasonable restrictions" about each of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights and you will get 500 different answers.
Click to expand...

You may very well have 500 different definitions of "reasonable" when it comes to restricting firearms, and I can accept that. However, this was about individual liberty to possess and own a firearm, not a mere restriction. Accepting reasonable restrictions is one thing, outright bans are something completely different. There is no basis in our Constitution for such a thing.

Your opinion of why we should maintain the 2nd Amendment is foolishly weak. We have not required a well-armed militia of the citizenry in many years, and doubtful we ever will again. We have a substantial army, fully trained and equipped with the most powerful weapons known to man. This was not the intention of the framers in establishing the 2nd Amendment, regardless of your simplistic interpretation of it.

The right to bear arms is enumerated so as to insure individuals a means to protect their lives and property. If we have the right to claim freedoms endowed by our Creator, we certainly have the right to protect them with armed force. The "well-armed militias" was the suggested way in which the founders articulated we do this, should the need arise, but it began with the fundamental right of all Americans to keep and bear arms. Your stated view is overlooking the fundamental reason we are allowed to bear arms, and focuses on the recommendation of how we might use the arms in protecting our nation. It is always foolish to overlook the fundamental reasons for something.
 
Sorry GoodLuck, I don't mean to sound like I am arguing with you, the point you made is not wrong, just incomplete and shallow. It is not merely important to be prepared to form a well-armed militia, it goes much deeper than that. Without the fundamental right to bear arms, 'We The People' cease to have any means to protect the powers it holds. All of the documents in the world can grant rights to 'We The People' but it is ultimately up to 'We The People' to defend and protect those rights with firearms, and without firearms, there is essentially no power to defend and protect.

It is precisely this reason the Liberal Socialists assault the 2nd Amendment. Like religion, if they can systematically destroy foundational support, they can remove the barriers to eventual acceptance of Socialism, it's easier with God and Guns out of the way, you know?
 
We haven't needed the fourth amendment provision against barring soldiers from being quartered in our homes for a while either. Lets just get rid of that one too.
 
Dixie said:
Sorry GoodLuck, I don't mean to sound like I am arguing with you, the point you made is not wrong, just incomplete and shallow. It is not merely important to be prepared to form a well-armed militia, it goes much deeper than that. Without the fundamental right to bear arms, 'We The People' cease to have any means to protect the powers it holds. All of the documents in the world can grant rights to 'We The People' but it is ultimately up to 'We The People' to defend and protect those rights with firearms, and without firearms, there is essentially no power to defend and protect.

It is precisely this reason the Liberal Socialists assault the 2nd Amendment. Like religion, if they can systematically destroy foundational support, they can remove the barriers to eventual acceptance of Socialism, it's easier with God and Guns out of the way, you know?
Click to expand...
You misread my point. My point was about what kinds of limits are acceptable (reasonable) with regard to the 2nd amendment.

I did not, in this thread, say why I think the 2nd amendment was written, or why it is still important today, and (contrary to the "times have changed" theorists) will ALWAYS be an essential (not just important, be absolutely necessary for the long term) in a free, democratic society.

I am fully aware of the importance of the 2nd amendment, and why it is important. My comparison to ready militia of the 1780s has to do with what arms should be allowed to a private citizen. In the 1780s it was expected of the militia man to possess at minimum the firearms carried by a standing army soldier. Every citizen today should also have reasonable access to all the firearms common to the basic infantry soldier of a standing army. In other words, I think the ban on full auto weapons except for those who have a VERY hard to obtain class III license is hogwash. I would accept, and even encourage a requirement of training on such weapons, but not the level of difficulty currently in place.

The 2nd amendment is the one right we have that puts teeth in protecting our other rights. I do not support the idea of the 1780s definition of militia as something to enhance our standing armies (which by the 1780s definition, includes what we now call the state militias). They are well tough enough to handle their job of national security. Anyone interested in the job of national security can always join their preferred branch of our military forces.

I support the idea of the 1780s definition of militia BECAUSE of our standing armies and state militias. Under the wrong leadership, those forces whose job it is to protect us could well be turned against us. (Kent State anyone? That was a MISTAKE and look what happened. Imagine if something like that was INTENDED.) As many point out, when the government has all the weapons, the people don't have much choice except to bend over when the time comes. If the people allow themselves to be disarmed, then it will not be long before they find themselves choosing between losing other freedoms one after another, or attempt violent revolt without the tools for revolt.

But as long as the people are armed, the other rights are protected also. As long as we have the capability - and the government KNOWS we have the capability - for armed revolt, then it never will become necessary.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
You may very well have 500 different definitions of "reasonable" when it comes to restricting firearms, and I can accept that. However, this was about individual liberty to possess and own a firearm, not a mere restriction. Accepting reasonable restrictions is one thing, outright bans are something completely different. There is no basis in our Constitution for such a thing.
Click to expand...
That is your view. As is obviated by the 5-4 decision, there are those who believe a ban on certain types of firearms is "reasonable". There are those who believe that requiring certain "safety precautions" such ass disabling a firearm for storage in ones house is "reasonable". I strongly disagree with those opinions, but there are many who adhere to them.

The point here is most of those who support the D.C. gun control laws did not view them as bans. After all, they are letting you have your hunting rifles and shotguns, (as long as you disassemble them when at home) what more do you want? Watch the opinion pages for the next week or so. You will see MANY opinion decry the decision because (according to them) the D.C. laws were NOT a "ban" on gun ownership.

Of course, anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the so-called safety requirements on sporting firearms, coupled with the ban on other types of firearms, equated to an effective ban on the right to keep and bear arms. They forget that keeping and bearing are two different functions. They "allowed" people to KEEP some arms, but banned ALL types of BEARING those arms. Tch tch, go back to square one and start over.


That being said, I consider the D.C. gun control laws to be a blessing in disguise. The anti-gun crowd finally stepped over the line far enough to force SCOTUS to take a good hard look at the issue. And they did it at a time (rare in the past 50 years) when the court was not loaded with so-called progressives. Even though the decision was tight, even though the decision should not have been tight, the end result is the fact that a big part of the founders' intent for the 2nd amendment was officially recognized. It would take a full about-face reversal to take away the now SCOTUS-stamped-of-approval idea that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the PEOPLE, and not of the state militias. A reversal of that decision is SO not likely to happen, at least not for a long time.

We will still have battles over what constitutes "reasonable restrictions" on a constitutionally enumerated right of the people. But from this point on, we will at least be battling over a recognized right of the people, and NOT battling whether it IS a right of the people.
 
We will still have battles over what constitutes "reasonable restrictions" on a constitutionally enumerated right of the people. But from this point on, we will at least be battling over a recognized right of the people, and NOT battling whether it IS a right of the people.
Click to expand...

I think you and I are on the same page with gun rights, but I think you are missing a fundamental point about our current Supreme Court. The vote on whether individuals have the right to bear arms, was 5-4! Not 8-1 or 9-0, but 5-4!! Replace one originalist judge with another activist, and we would have essentially lost our 2nd Amendment rights as Americans! This is ALARMING to me, it doesn't appear to be as alarming to you.

The purpose of the Supreme Court should be to evaluate whether a case is proven on basis of the Constitution, and its originally intended and understood meanings. It is not their duty or charge to re-assign meaning to the works of our founding fathers in an attempt to change what is the law. Yet, that is precisely what they continue to do, and they don't legitimately have the authority to do. The SCOTUS is not given this authority in the Constitution, and We The People never gave them this right! We have a means to change our laws and legislate what The People wish, and it should not be left to 9 people in black robes to decide for us.

When people talk about what the Founding Fathers would laugh at, it would likely be the mere notion that we've allowed the SCOTUS to obtain such power and control. They would wonder why we bother with funding and paying for a Congress, or spend money on electing representatives. If we are going to cede our power to 9 people in black robes, why bother with all the cost of government, just abolish it!
 
But didn't the Founders intend the idea of the doctrine of the separation of powers of the legislature, the executive and the judiciary - from Montesquieu?

If you took the judiciary out of that balancing act wouldn't that be a threat to liberty?
 
Diuretic said:
But didn't the Founders intend the idea of the doctrine of the separation of powers of the legislature, the executive and the judiciary - from Montesquieu?

If you took the judiciary out of that balancing act wouldn't that be a threat to liberty?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Don't take Dixie to seriously. When the courts make a decision he likes there defenders of liberty, when they make a decision he doesn't like, their damned activist judges.

You should have seen the absolutely hillarious dance on the pin of a head he did over the Kittzmiller vs City of Dover decision on Intelligent Design.
 
Diuretic said:
But didn't the Founders intend the idea of the doctrine of the separation of powers of the legislature, the executive and the judiciary - from Montesquieu?

If you took the judiciary out of that balancing act wouldn't that be a threat to liberty?
Click to expand...


Exactly, but all three powers have a different function. We've allowed the Judiciary to assume the role of the Legislature. I have no problem with a Supreme Court which functions as it should, there is a place in the system for the Judicial branch. I hope my comments didn't lead you to think I advocate disbanding the SCOTUS or something, because it certainly wasn't the point intended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top