Guns and the Supreme Court

Advocate - so, in essence, your argument consists of alleging non-existence of "the RIGHT of the PEOPLE", because some "precondition" is lacking!

Great reading of the constitution there, since it follows logically that in the preamble "WE THE PEOPLE" are similarly nonexistent.

With all due deference I hope that you take a hike away from this thread

Your ignorance is palpable. I am saying that the people's right in A2 is in the context of a militia. Is that too tough for you?

BTW, I don't take dictation from those who are mentally challenged.

Advocate - LOL. Exactly as represented, you have 00.00 argument ref. "context" of a "militia" and are reduced to attempt insults. Ain't gonna fly, buddy, take a hike before ridiculing yourself further <G>

How hard would it be to start a militia?

Hell, Maporsche, we can do it online right here - you, me, David, couple of other guys and.... voila! The A2K militia!

We'd have to be "well regulated", so I'll create some badges on my printer and we'll each get a certificate stating how well-regulated we are.

I guess that's all we need to ensure our 2A rights are covered right?

Far as I can tell, Maporsche, we're in business, I'll start polishing my guns tonight.

Note to "Advocate": what did YOU think the "A2" in "A2K" MEANT, when YOU became a member?! <G>

How do you know that? I don't see any inconsistency that would arise if the constitution's usage of the word "militia" was the same in the militia clause as in the Second Amendment. You say that in the Second Amendment, "militia" means "the people in armed condition". Why can't it mean the same in the militia clause? It would mean no less and no more than that the US government can draft people for military service in times of war.

One points out that the entire adult male US population is enrolled in the "unorganized militia", by federal statute. (Okay, it's a 200-year-old statute, but it's still on the books and hasn't been pre-empted...)

However, even if Advocate would like the phrase "well-regulated militia" to imply that only state-organized militias have the right to bear arms, that is definitely not in agreement with the historical context of the framers. Keep in mind that those same militias were the ones that won the war against the British - and had been organized, not under government control, but expressly against said government. (Nor were they organized by a budding American government against the British - it's more like the American government was organized by those militias!)

Let's also note that an armed American society is a given, at this point; attempts to effect gun confiscation would fail, or more likely, trigger exactly the same kind of anti-government response as was anticipated two hundred years ago. "Cold dead hands" and all that. ;p

We the people have the constitutional right to bear arms - period!

Pretty cheap here...

The court found " the people " to be the same people thru out
the Constitution of 1787 and the Bill of Rights.
We disagree on this point.
Either the court will choose to follow this precedent,
or it will not. Assuming that I were rong,
and it were only obiter dictum: I 'd prefer to have the dictum
FAVORING personal freedom, as it does, than opposing it.
Don 't u think ?




Will u do me the favor
of comparing the precedential value of VERDUGO
to the SLAUGHTER HOUSE CASES, bearing in mind
that in the latter, NOT all of the 37 rights of the Bill of Rights
were before the USSC for interpretation ???





Probably.



Yes
I offered quoted professional opinions of very respected grammarians,
who parsed the text of 2A, reaching a fully libertarian result.
I also told u, in open candor and good faith,
that I 've addressed this issue to other professional grammarians
with whom I have chanced to come into contact
( who are not involved in the freedom of self defense movement )
and ALL of them were in a unanimous consensus, on a technical grammatical basis.

( Most respectfully, U have offered no counterexpert;
only your own gut-feeling. )

I respectfully suggest that it is MORE than idle random co-incidence
that these grammatical analyses are precisely congruent
with our knowledge of the beliefs and philosophy of each of the Founders
who wrote the instruments in question.
Will u comment on that please, Advocate ?
or anyone else who 'd like to offer an opinion ?
I 'd like to know what u think of that co-incidence.

( For instance, James Madison organized [and was the M.C. of] many gunnery
competition target shooting matches, and gave prizes to winners;
there survives a letter of Thomas Jefferson to his 12 year old nephew,
wherein he counsels the boy always to take his gun with him
when he goes out for a walk, and that gunnery practice is preferable
to ball games, and that it builds personal character. )
Our knowledge of the Founders of the Republic indicates
that thay share MY point of vu of freedom of self defense
with the necessary instrumentation to get that job done.
There were NO police at the time; everyone had to take care of himself.

This PERFECTLY co-incides, like a key in a lock,
with what the grammarians tell us of the philosophy written into 2A:
no surprize. Not even ONE of the Founders
supported the citizens being dependent on the generosity of the police as to their right to KABA.
Thay did not even concede the EXISTENCE of police,
to whose concept thay referred aversively as " a standing army. "

There is no evidence whatsoever that ANY person alive in the 1700s
supported discriminatory licensure of the right to possess guns.






Somewhere, in my readings I encountered other examples.
I don t remember whether I presented them to u.
Its too much work to track them down again
and not much point in it.

We r only chatting here,
and nothing either of us says will have much influence on the USSC 's result.





Your reasoning is that:
if thay only did it ONCE, then it does not count,
regardless of what the professional grammarians opine ?

Thay said on TV that u can get
an AK 47 for $12 in Arab bazzars.

Thay r very simple, rugged machines.




David

Common Sense and The Law (should) go hand in hand.

Should our nation ever need to rely upon a civilian militia to oppose a homegrown tyrant or an invading army, that militia will be useless if its members are not armed.

There are two ways a pending militia can be armed:

Individuals within the community possess guns.

There is a community stockpile of weapons for use by the militia should it ever be required.

What is the best way for a tyrant or invading force to assure that it opposition by civilian militias is ineffective?

Deprive the militia of weapons.

Which is an easier way of accomplishing this goal? Seizing the public armory or going house to house to find and secure personal weapons?

If a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, then it is necessary that the militia be adequately armed.

A militia is a fighting force, not a debating society and so arms are an absolutely essential prerequisite for an effective militia.

As brilliantly practical as our Founding Fathers were, is there any reason to believe they thought that a public armory was the best way to assure an armed militia?

Put yourself in the place of a tyrant: If you wanted to reduce the possibility that the populace might rise in armed revolution, which would you prefer?

A State where personal arms were stored in a public armory until needed or a State where personal arms were distributed among the populace?

A State where a list of all gun owners was readily available for policing, or a State in which no central authority could identify all gun owners and potential rebels?

Whether or not individuals should be allowed to own automatic weapons is a valid concern, but it needs to be addressed within the Constitution that protects the right of the individual to bear arms. No one wants to rest their hopes and designs on Constitution Amendments, but that is the real avenue for gun-control advocates to pursue.

Based on the oral arguments, it certainly seems that a majority of justices are inclined to rule that the DC gun-control statute is unconstitutional.

I have to laugh whenever I hear the supporters of the DC statute tell us that the law doesn't deprive citizens of protecting themselves through personal gun ownership.

"You can have shotguns and rifles to protect your home and family. Our statute doesn't outlaw all firearms."

OK, that's somewhat reasonable. I can just as easily (and probably more easily) fend off an attacker in my home with a shotgun or rifles than with a hand gun.But wait, if you do rely on a shotgun or rifle for protection, the same DC statute requires you to install a trigger lock on the weapon or keep it disassembled. In either instance, the weapon will be of little to no value in actually protecting yourself and your family.

DC advocates of the statute are all to happy to trot out statistics that the great majority of crimes in DC involve handguns.

How much do you want to bet that the crooks involved in these crimes don't have a license for their guns, and could care less about statutory requirements.

It sounds a bit cliche, but gun controls will never control the use of guns as far as illegal practices go. There have been enough studies to show that crooks will disproportionately increase their risk of capture and punishment, if they believe that an action or tool (a gun) will minimize the chance of them ever getting caught.

Remember, we are not dealing with Evil Brain Scientists here. Armed criminals don't spend a lot of time studying all the possible scenarios associated with their own use of guns.

I have never owned a gun.

I didn't before I had kids because I considered myself invincible - or at least the last person on the list of potential targets for a crook.

I didn't when I had kids because of the risk of them getting their hands on them.

I don't have one now because of inertia.

After Katrina, I began to seriously consider purchasing a gun. Katrina showed that the rule of law can break down fairly easily and when it does, the best protection for you and your family is the rule of guns.

I still don't have one because of inertia, but I'm going out tomorrow to look for one.

Not much of a chance that Texas will overly restrict my right to own a gun, but even if it tried, I bet I could keep mine. Not so if I had to park it in a public stockpile.

What do u intend to get ?

I have found revolvers to be much more
mechanically reliable than pistols.

My own taste goes to a .44 revolver
loaded with .44 special hollowpointed slugs,
to optimize energy dump into the target.





David

What does it boil down to, the gun debate in America?

"I support the right of my fellow citizens to possess the means of shooting holes in me, as long as I can have the means of shooting holes in them"?

That would almost make sense if everyone was 100% rational, all of the time.

But they're not, and it doesn't.

It means that everyone shud be prepared
to handle an emergency; their lives depend on it.

Its better to HAVE emergency equipment
and not need it,
than to NEED emergency equipment and not HAVE it.

The State of Alaska repealed all of its gun laws a few years ago.
Crime dropped.
Criminals don 't like to get shot by dissatisfied victims.
During interviews in prisons, criminals are very open about admitting this.


There is NO chance at all that criminals will be disarmed.
U might as well try to make gold out of water.




David

Something that takes no real skill to kill and offers me the best chance of blowing away an intruder.

I'm thinking a shotgun

There is also another point,
a point of political ideology,
as to toleration of acts of USURPATION
of power by our hireling government.

If this is tolerated as to ANY aspect of the Constitution,
then the precedent is established as to any other part of the Constitution
simply being FORGOTTEN into oblivion
and none of our rights 'd be safe any more.
That applies to ANYTHING, including elections.


Our freedom 'd endure only at the discretionary whims of government.

If ever government grabbed control of the country,
the citizens' chances of dislodging its grip are very poor,
with modern ( and future ) surveillance techniques and WMDs.

It 'd become a black hole of despotism for the foreseeable future.




David

Thank u !
Good points, all.
Your historical erudition is refreshing and gratifying.




DISPASSIONATE ANALYSIS OF THE AMENDMENT'S
SYNTACTICAL ARCHITECTURE
MAY BE FACILITATED BY THE FOLLOWING ANALOGY:

"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" US Constitution, 2nd Amendment

ANALOGY: A well educated electorate being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of THE PEOPLE
to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

1. Does this say that only voters have the right to read books?

2. Does this say "well educated" only by STATE GOVERNMENT colleges?

3. Does this say that only voters who are professors of state run colleges
have the right to read books?

4. Does this say that if you miss an election,
it's ok for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Books
to knock down your door and steal your books?