The second amendment

I doubt that any guns would be made in the hood. Moreover, while a few may be made in the burbs, it would hardly be mass production. With a really tough gun control, guns in the hands of thugs would largely dry up.

Chaplin wrote:
They respect the law in so far as they wish to remain alive and out of prison.

OSD wrote:
If that were true,
then BY DEFINITION, thay wud not be criminals.
David

They are criminals, because they have already been convicted of crime(s),
and served time in jail and/or prison.

OSD, heroin and guns? That is sort of like comparing applies and Fords.

The courts have decided that the second amendment does not preclude gun control. Get over it.

OSD, heroin and guns? That is sort of like comparing applies and Fords.

The courts have decided that the second amendment does not preclude gun control. Get over it.

Under our legal system, anybody convicted of a crime is a criminal whether they were wrongly accused or not.
By our laws they are criminals until such time the criminal charges are retracted by the legal system.

It doesn't matter one whit what you believe they should be.

This pretty demolishes your Vergudo cite.
U wish that it did;
I don 't believe it does.
Apparently, u got this from some anti-freedom
anti-Constitution liberal group that twists the truth.


MYTH: The Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez establishes that the second amendment protects an individual right.
TRUTH: This was actually a fourth amendment case.
Yes; the USSC found it NECESSARY to define who "THE PEOPLE" are
whose rights are protected by the Bill of Rights. It found that
the term "THE PEOPLE" MEANS THE SAME THING everywhere
that it is found in the Constitution of 1787,
and everywhere that it is found IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
Do u deny that ??

In the case the court commented on the meaning of the word people as used in the Constitution. "While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community." (United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez 1990) Notice that the above quotation starts with "While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive....". So the Supreme Court is admitting it can't be sure about its analysis.
The USSC explains what the text "suggests"
that one class of people
are protected by the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments,
THIS IS ONE UNITARY CLASS,
not a seperate class for members
of state government militia.
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals explained the truth about United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez- "Citing dicta from United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, I dispute that this is obiter dicta
because it WAS NECESSARY to define " the people "
in order to decide the appeal of the Verdugo case.
Consider, e.g., Barron v. Baltimore
wherein only a 5th Amendment question was presented,
but the USSC applied it to the entire Bill of Rights.

494 U.S. 259, 265, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1060, 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990), Hale argues that the Second Amendment protections apply to individuals and not to states or collective entities like militias. This argument is inapplicable to this case. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the federal government from regulating the possession of arms where such regulation would interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia. See Miller,
This is twisting the Miller case,
wherein the USSC correctly pointed out
that the 2nd Amendment protected only the possession
of weapons and that the sawn off shotgun had not been proven
to still be a weapon, in that mutilated condition.
The trial court had taken judicial notice that it was.
The USSC wanted record evidence (presumably from an expert)
that it was, and so it remanded the case,
but Miller was never heard from again; he was in default.



307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818; United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926, 98 S.Ct. 1493, 55 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); Cody, 460 F.2d 34. Whether the 'right to bear arms' for militia purposes is 'individual' or 'collective' in nature is irrelevant where, as here, the individual's possession of arms is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a militia." (U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992)

The court correctly points out that this passage from United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez is dicta BALONEY ! (an opinion voiced by a judge that has only incidental bearing on the case in question and is therefore not binding) so it's not the law. The court also pointed out that whether the second amendment protects a collective or an individual right the important thing is it's still right that exists only in connection with a well regulated militia.
This only shows confusion
of what the USSC said in the Miller case.
For instance, the US Supreme Court said
in US v. MILLER (1939) 3O7 US 174 that the arms should be
"ordinary military equipment...AYMETTE v. STATE 2 Hump.
[21 Tenn] 154, 158." [emphasis added]

The AYMETTE case,
which the Supreme Court approvingly adopted declares:
"the arms, the right to keep which is secured,
are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare,
and that constitute ordinary military equipment.
If the citizens have these arms in their hands,
they are prepared in the best possible manner
to repel any encroachments on their rights."
This contemplates the citizens bearing arms
against an oppressive government,
as the Founders had recently and successfully done.



Let's analyze the word "people" in the second amendment. It has been claimed that this word necessarily means each adult citizen in America.
I do not believe that the USSC referred only to ADULTS.
I don 't remember that word appearing in the decision.


Let's look at how the word "people" is used in the preamble of the Constitution. "We the People of the United States....do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It clear that the word "people" in this context is being used in a collective sense. Obviously, not every adult citizen in America was involved in writing the Constitution. Likewise, saying that the Russians have nuclear weapons does not necessarily mean that each Russian owns a nuclear weapon. The word Russians is being used here in a collective sense. Saying that the people have the right to bear arms does not necessarily mean that each adult citizen has a right to bear arms.

Here the circuit court of appeals
endeavors to substitute ITS preferences
for those of the USSC.

Akhil Reed Amar, a leading scholar of constitutional law and author of The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction, explains that the word people is used in a collective sense in the US Constitution. "But the libertarian reading must contend with textual embarrassments of its own. The amendment speaks of a right of 'the people' collectively rather than a right of 'persons' individually. And it uses a distinctly military phrase: 'bear arms.'....The rest of the Bill of Rights confirms this communitarian reading. The core of the First Amendment's assembly clause, which textually abuts the Second Amendment, is the right of 'the people'--in essence, voters--to 'assemble' in constitutional conventions and other political conclaves. So, too, the core rights retained and reserved to 'the people' in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were rights of the people collectively to govern themselves democratically.
FOOLISH:
1st Amendment freedom of speech, press and worship
are done INDIVIDUALLY. Thay don 't speak in a CHORUS
and a man can worship ALONE. He is desperately scraping
the bottom of the barrel.


The Fourth Amendment is trickier:

Trickier if one is trying to twist and decieve,
as the anti-liberty liberals do.
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.' Here, the collective 'people' wording is paired with more individualistic language of 'persons.'"
HOWEVER INTENSELY
THE LEFTISTS WISH THAT THE USSC
HAD NOT SAID WHAT IT DID IN VERDOGO,
IT STILL EXISTS.

If it had wished to take an anti-liberty,
anti-individualist philosophy in VERDUGO,
it easily cud have, as the 8th Circuit Court did.
David --Guninformation.org

Saying that the people have the right to bear arms does not necessarily mean that each adult citizen has a right to bear arms.

The amendment speaks of a right of 'the people' collectively rather than a right of 'persons' individually. And it uses a distinctly military phrase: 'bear arms.'...

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the federal government from regulating the possession of arms where such regulation would interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia.

David--
You have indicated that the USSC takes "arms" to mean "ordinary military equipment". Earlier, I asked where you would draw the line. (If you already answered, then I must have missed it.) So do you, personally, see a point where a line should be drawn, or do you hold that the right is unlimited, regarding the types of weaponry the "people" can privately own? I'm interested in your personal view.

Many people get away with crimes, because the legal system has not charged them, prosecuted them, and convicted them.

Criminal is a legal defition - nothing more, nothing less.