Justices agree on right to own guns

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Sonart Morgan!! Nice to see you dude! Seems like it's been a while.

Thanks. I thought I'd take a break from my philandering.

Quote by: Sonart And no, the evidence doesn't point in the opposite direction. Every ranking I've ever seem puts the U.S. among the most violent, murderous nations in the civilized world. You saw my chart where the U.S. is the most murderous among the 37 wealthiest nations.

Yes, this is common knowledge. We have a lot of murder here. But what has that got to do with gun ownership? You haven't demonstrated any kind of causal link.

Quote by: Sonart And which militias are currently necessary for the security of the United States?

Read it again:

Quote by: The US Constitution 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.

"A free State". That's what it says. Militias are necessary to maintain a FREE state. This means that the people must be armed and ready to safeguard their freedoms from foreign invasion OR domestic tyranny.

Quote by: Sonart Nah, based on how often each is operated, guns are several hundred times more deadly than automobiles.

Especially when people are defenseless against them.

Quote by: Sonart And YET, unlike those more deadly firearms, Americans are REQUIRED BY LAW to register an automobile before they can drive it, must pass a test and be licensed before they can operate an automobile, and must be insured before they can drive their car.

I, for one, would not be opposed to a proficiency test required for carrying a firearm in public.

Quote by: Sonart Says who? We're the wealthiest, baddest nation on earth, the toughest on crime, with the highest prison per capita prison population in the world, and you say other countries are better policed???

I say so. When your police force spends most of its time collecting revenue from minor traffic violations and and busting peaceful drug users, you know that real police work isn't getting done.

Quote by: Sonart And less violent to begin with??? Yeah, because they were saturated with the mythology of gun culture, gun violence, the code of the West, John Wayne, Dirty Harry, Rambo. etc. etc.

Dirty Harry? What decade are you living in?

You forgot Tupac, P. Diddy, etc.

Quote by: Sonart With the nonsense that we should focus our attention on criminals, not guns. With the largest prison population on earth, exactly how focused on criminals are we supposed to get?

Um, seeing as the majority of those prisoners are nonviolent drug users/distributers, it shouldn't be too hard.

Quote by: Sonart The 2nd Amendment, based on it's original intent is MOOT... it's meaningless... a well-regulated militia is NOT necessary.

Wow. So its no longer necessary for us to safeguard our freedoms? We should just let the government take care of that for us? When did this change come about, I wonder.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Held in proper working order by who, pray tell? The point is the same, the state was the entity expected to maintain the militia in "proper working order", to be in charge and manage it for it's purpose. The meaning is the same, really. The implication is the same. It was not about protecting yourself, it was about protecting the populace from invasion or uprising during that "Oh! Shit...it will take weeks to let the federal government know we are in imminent danger" time in our history. Read the 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. The amendment is saying that the government can not weaken the indiviual states (and by extention their citizens) in the power to protect themselves against imminent danger for fear of allowing a group of armed and trained (regulated) citizen soldiers in their midst. The federal government would have no need to fear armed indiviuals, even then. They could, however, fear organized state militas with cannon and trained and drilled troops. See, it is really that simple.

So what are you saying, that you oppose any federal ban on state militias?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman So what are you saying, that you oppose any federal ban on state militias?

Well, sure. I would oppose that. It would weaken a state's ability to respond to natural disasters, weaken the nation and serve no purpose.

But more to the point, I was saying the 2nd Amendment was NOT intended to make sure every numbnut or every citizen had the right to own handguns or assault weapons.

[Morgan_Freeman]

This article (yes, written by the NRA) nicely sums up the recent observed correlation between increased gun ownership and reduction in violent crime:

NRA-ILA :: Fact Sheets

Obviously it doesn't prove anything, but it certainly is compelling evidence against the idea that the mere presence of firearms in our society is a source of violence.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Well, sure. I would oppose that. It would weaken a state's ability to respond to natural disasters, weaken the nation and serve no purpose.

Cool. You know that such a ban has been around for more than a century, right?

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote by: lsbskins1 But more to the point, I was saying the 2nd Amendment was NOT intended to make sure every numbnut or every citizen had the right to own handguns or assault weapons.

Well, actually, it was. If we're really going to debate the meaning of the 2nd Amendment,

#1, you're going to lose
#2, we need to make a new thread, if there isnt one already.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Cool. You know that such a ban has been around for more than a century, right? Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Well, actually, it was. If we're really going to debate the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, #1, you're going to lose #2, we need to make a new thread, if there isnt one already.

Reform and reorganization is not banning. Give me a break. Why do you think I said it would weaken the nation? Do you think I do not know that the federal government has a great deal of control over the various Guard Units? The truth is that they are now better funded and better capable of serving their freakin purpose.

I won't lose and we can switch to a new thread if you feel it is warrented.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Reform and reorganization is not banning. Give me a break. Why do you think I said it would weaken the nation? Do you think I do not know that the federal government has a great deal of control over the various Guard Units? The truth is that they are now better funded and better capable of serving their freakin purpose.

You don't seem to understand what a militia is. A militia is a military organization made up of citizens, that is NOT part of a national military.

By absorbing militias into the Army, the Feds were effectively outlawing militias in the US.

Quote by: lsbskins1 I won't lose and we can switch to a new thread if you feel it is warrented.

A new thread it is.

[LadiesMan217]

A ban on guns makes about as much sense as a ban on drugs. If you want them you are gonna get them whether they are legal or not so the only ones that will suffer are the law abiding citizens who cannot own a gun for protection anymore.

[Kite]

Quote by: Sonart . No Kite, it's not a seperate statement; the first clause qualifies the second... "you have the right to keep and bear arms, PROVIDED THAT it's necessary for the maintainance of a well-regulated militia, as defined by the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clauses 15-16." The thing is, you don't have to take my word for it. The definition I just stated has been the standing precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court since they ruled on United States v. Miller in 1939, and the vast majority of the Federal Courts have confirmed and expanded on that ruling since then; that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a COLLECTIVE RIGHT of States to arm militias, not an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to own guns. Here, Read for yourself... Since you apparently missed it, that's what this thread is all about... the first case in 70 years in which the Supreme Court will actually rule on what the 2nd Amendment does or doesn't mean. Yeah? Which militia is that? Really? Then perhaps you can explain why it's significant that the Supremes are currently ruling on Heller v. DC. Don't you find it interesting that the NRA and the gun lobby has been telling you that you have right that, for the last 70 years, the Courts have actually ruled you don't really have. And even more specificallly, with the constitutionality of all kinds of laws being challenged before the Court every year, not once in 70 long years has he NRA or any other part of the gun lobby or the gun industry attempted to challenge any of the "20,000" onerous gun control laws as violations of your 2nd Amendment rights. C'mon, Rox, explain it to me... if the Brady Bill was so horrible, why didn't the NRA simply challenge it before the Supreme Court as a violation of your guaranteed right to bear arms? Hmmmm? No, the standing Army is the standing Army... exactly what Washington and other founders did NOT want, and why they differentiated between the 'Army' 'Navy' and the 'Militia' in the Constitution itself. See for yourself... here's the United States Constitution. Try actually reading it. No, Roxy dear, on a per use basis, they're not. But hey, there's lies, there's damn lies, and there's statistics. .

Look sonart, this is America. This is a place where I can own as many weapons as I want, and if I want a new weapon, I can go out and buy one, since I am a responsible law abiding citizen. However, if I was, say, a repeat felony offender, I would not have that privilege. You are right in that gun ownership is a privilege, what I think is that you don't like that so many people have that privilege, that it makes you feel threatened. But do you know what? You have that privilege too. There is absolutely NOTHING stopping you from going out to a gun store today and buying a weapon, and learning to use it to protect yourself from all these crazy gun wielding maniacs that you keep talking about.
'Know thy enemy', thats all I can say.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Morgan Freeman Actually, no. "Well regulated", in 1787, and in this context, meant basically "in proper working order".

We know exactly what "well-regulated Militia" means because it's defined in the Constitution itself, and it means considerably more than simply "in proper working order".

Article I Section 8 -- "Congress shall have the power to...

15: To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Regarding someone's contention that the Army and the Militia are one and the same, I'm afraid not...

Article II, Section 2 -- "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States."

Quote by: Morgan Freeman Yes, this is common knowledge. We have a lot of murder here. But what has that got to do with gun ownership? You haven't demonstrated any kind of causal link.

It's not simply gun ownership, Morgan, but the whole sense of entitlement regarding guns and the American mythos surrounding guns; that America was created with guns and solving problems with guns is an American tradition, that "Good Guys" are always handy with a gun (and, of course, everyone thinks they're the good guy) and "Real Men" rely on guns to solve problems.

All of which may have shared a spark of truth when a sparsely populated, rural, agricultural America was mostly a vast frontier to be tamed. But the frontiers and wilderness are long gone, and America is now mostly an urban/suburban jungle of 300 million souls who are too crowded, too hectic and too angry to be armed to the teeth.

Quote by: Morgan Freeman Read it again:

I give... what am I missing. The security of our free state has been in the capable hands of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and National Guard for some time now, and for all of Washington's, Hamilton's and Jefferson's fears, they have yet to prove a threat to our civilian government. State Militias are basically non-existant, and those that do exist certainly don't fit the constitutional definition of "Well Regulated".

Quote by: Morgan Freeman "A free State". That's what it says. Militias are necessary to maintain a FREE state. This means that the people must be armed and ready to safeguard their freedoms from foreign invasion OR domestic tyranny.

That's entirely YOUR definition, Morgan, and while it's creative and all, it has no bearing on Constitutionality. To the Contrary, the Case Law that I've cited as the standing precedent make quite clear what the qualifying clause means.

Quote by: Morgan Freeman Dirty Harry? What decade are you living in? You forgot Tupac, P. Diddy, etc.

Fine, have it your way... all lovely examples of the wacked out gun culture America has become.

Quote by: Morgan Freeman Um, seeing as the majority of those prisoners are nonviolent drug users/distributers, it shouldn't be too hard.

An urban myth based on the mis-use of statistics, Morgan. The majority (60%) of FEDERAL prisoners are drug related, but Federal prisons make up only about 10% of the combined state prison population, of which only about 20% are drug related.

You didn't read my memo, did you?

Quote by: Morgan Freeman Especially when people are defenseless against them.

And yet in modern, democratic countries with strict gun control, people are vastly safer. So apparently, even with our own guns, we're less defensible with the country awash in guns.

Quote by: Morgan Freeman I, for one, would not be opposed to a proficiency test required for carrying a firearm in public.

I own a firearm. What I'd like is for people to see owning a gun as a privilege which they must earn and need to take responsibility for, rather than some sort of gawd-given entitlement.

As it is, you folks seem to accept America's gun-addled violent nature as just the price we have to pay so that those of you who want to can enjoy owning guns. I'm sorry, but that's just sick.

Quote by: Morgan Freeman Wow. So its no longer necessary for us to safeguard our freedoms?

We have the U.S. military, the most powerful force the world has ever know protecting our shores, and those forces authorized by the voters protecting the rest

Quote by: Morgan Freeman We should just let the government take care of that for us? When did this change come about, I wonder.

You're not getting it... we're doing a horrible job of taking care of ourselves with all the available guns. We need to change how we think about.

And if you're thinking of guns as the best defense against our own government... sorry, the U.S. military would crush any armed insurrection that sought to over-throw our government.

.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Morgan Freeman So what are you saying, that you oppose any federal ban on state militias?

They don't need to be banned, because they serve no purpose... they're obsolete. State militias still exist, but they bear no relation whatsoever to the 'Well Regulated Militias" defined by the Constitution and are under no guidance by Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Quote by: Morgan Freeman Well, actually, it was. If we're really going to debate the meaning of the 2nd Amendment,...

Well, actually, we already KNOW the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, which has been defined for the last 70 years by the standing precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court -- Miller -- and the majority of the Federal Courts as a Collective Right of the States to provide for the arming of their militias, not an individual right of anyone to own a gun.

Quote by: Morgan Freeman #1, you're going to lose

Sorry, but based on the current law of the land, you've already lost.

Quote by: Morgan Freeman #2, we need to make a new thread, if there isnt one already.

Why??? The point of this thread is EXACTLY about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, since the High Court is now hearing Heller v. DC and, for the first time in 70 years, since Miller, is being asked to define the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

This thread is EXACTLY on topic.

Quote by: Kite Look sonart, this is America. This is a place where I can own as many weapons as I want, and if I want a new weapon, I can go out and buy one, since I am a responsible law abiding citizen.

This is what I was referring to... you accept that the U.S. is an unusually violent nation awash in guns, yet you seem to think it's a price the rest of us should be willing to pay so that YOU can enjoy having your guns. That's just sick.

.

[Fangrim]

Justices agree on right to own guns - Yahoo! News ... A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when he said the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." He is likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — a majority of the nine-member court. ...

SHIT!

I'm so freaking pissed off right now.

You'd think of all people that Supreme Court justices would know what the hell the Second Amendment means.

dammit.

[Kite]

Quote by: Fangrim SHIT! I'm so freaking pissed off right now. You'd think of all people that Supreme Court justices would know what the hell the Second Amendment means. dammit.

It is a sad, sad day when a rational human being is actually angry that one of their rights isn't being taken away.

[Roxdog]

No, Roxy dear, on a per use basis, they're not. But hey, there's lies, there's damn lies, and there's statistics.

Ha..."per use". Word games. Cars kill more people each year than guns.

You know very little about any of this besides what you are able to google on the fly. You obviously know nothing about the American Revolution as you proved to us earlier in the thread so why should anyone take you seriously?

Again:

The "well regulated militia" is the Army/Navy/National guard. The People are the people. Note that the Amendment distinguishes between both. Its actually very simple yet Sonart seems quite perplexed. I think a history lesson is in order. His opinion on what should be done about guns and the meaning of the 2nd Amendment aren't the same as much as he wishes they could be...

[Roxdog]

Sonart, you need to stop reading the American Constitution through those Pink-colored glasses...

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Kite It is a sad, sad day when a rational human being is actually angry that one of their rights isn't being taken away.

A right can't be taken away it if never existed in the first place.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman You don't seem to understand what a militia is. A militia is a military organization made up of citizens, that is NOT part of a national military. By absorbing militias into the Army, the Feds were effectively outlawing militias in the US. A new thread it is.

I understand perfectly what a militia is meant to be. You are the one who seems to be having trouble. The purpose of the militia was to ensure "the secuity of a free state". The idea was to continue to allow the states to maintain a responsive fighting force. The following quote comes from a site that would be more in line with your ideals than mine, (The Militia Clause of the Constitution Negates the "Collective Right" Interpretation of the Second Amendment By Robert Greenslade - Price of Liberty) but I believe it is indicative of what was REALLY in the minds of those who felt the 2nd Amendment was a needed addition to the Constitution.

"Mr. JOHN MARSHALL .The state governments do not derive their powers from the general government... The state legislatures had the power to command and govern their militia before, and still have it, undeniably, unless there is something in this Constitution that takes it away.. But the power given to the states by the people is not taken away; for the Constitution does not say so. The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislatures before, both shall exercise it, unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that of the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it. But there are no negative words here. It rests, therefore with the states. To me it appears, then, unquestionable that the state governments can call forth the militia, in case the Constitution should be adopted, in the same manner as they could have done before its adoption.. All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to the Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article. This power is not included in the restrictions in that section. But what excludes every possibility of doubt, is the last part of it- that "no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." When invaded, they can engage in war, as also when in imminent danger. This proves that the states can use the militia when they find it necessary."

Notice he ain't talking about indivuals having the right of self protection. He is talking about the ability of the states to engage in war when actually invaded or facing insurrection.

And just because the government was willing to take advantage of the cost saving fact that most men of the time owned weapons and could be counted on the bring them to service, that is still not an indication that the intent of the amendment was anything other than what was stated above.

As to the idea that a militia, by definition, must be completely independant of a national army, well that is just silly in the extreme. They were meant to be complementary, not exclusive of each other. Sonart has provided qoutes from the Constitution that put the lie to this assertion. Here is just one:

Article I Section 8 -- "Congress shall have the power to...

15: To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

When necessary, the state militas were subject to use by the federal government from the beginning. Think of it like a football team. The Army is like the big uglies on the line, the real power and heart of the team, while the state militias were like the DBs, roaming the back field, protecting against the quick attacking deep threats. In the end, they are on the same team and subject to the orders of the head coach, but they have different position coaches, different meetings to attend and different areas of responsibility. Not a perfect analogy, because DBs are never on the field independtly of the rest of the defense, as a state militia may be, say when idiots are trying to keep a black man from going to college, but a useful analogy none-the-less. I do not agree with Sonart that militias are obsolete. They provide a very necessary function still, despite the fact that neither France or Spain or any Native American tribe constitute a continuing "deep threat". Floods, hurricanes and rioting are still very real "deep threats" that do not require each state to have an "army" in the field 24/7 but require a trained and equiped force subject to quick call and not actively engaged in a constant national defense function. But, that is just my 2 cents worth of opinion.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Fangrim You'd think of all people that Supreme Court justices would know what the hell the Second Amendment means.

Yeah, I regret that Boy George, the 'Worst President Ever', had the opportunity to stack the Court that was destined to finally rule on this, but I'm not quite as alarmed as you seem to be.

It's like I said, from what I read, the Court seems to be trying hard to make everyone happy by not actually changing anything... gun loons can still strut around declaring their right to bear arms and federal, state and local governments can still pass gun control laws, as long as they don't go too close complete confiscation.

One would hope the U.S. might evolve beyond it's Wild West mythology, but maybe that's too much to expect.

Quote by: Kite t is a sad, sad day when a rational human being is actually angry that one of their rights isn't being taken away.

What's sad, Kite, is how you can easily compare rights of individuals to express ideas, (speech, religion, press) and receive access to a fair and transparent legal process (quartering, search & seizure, due process, bail, etc. etc) with the right to own a deadly weapon, the means to kill people.

Quote by: Roxdog Ha..."per use". Word games. Cars kill more people each year than guns.

Sure, Roxy... whatever you say.

Here's a mental exercise for you... imagine you wake up one morning and discover that... a) all the cars and trucks in America have disappeared b) all the guns in America have disappeared.

Which scenerio do you think would bring life in America to a grinding halt?

Quote by: Roxdog You know very little about any of this besides what you are able to google on the fly. You obviously know nothing about the American Revolution as you proved to us earlier in the thread so why should anyone take you seriously?

Um... because you haven't said diddlysquat - besides calling me names and whining like a little girl - to rebut any of the points I've made?

Quote by: Roxdog Sonart, you need to stop reading the American Constitution through those Pink-colored glasses...

As opposed to what... down the barrel of a gun?

The Constitution says what it says, and one of the things it says is that the Supreme Court, and those Lower Courts approved by Congress, are the arbiters of what is and is not Constitutional, and for the last 70 years those Courts have declared that you do not have the individual right to own a gun.

But cheer up, Rox... it looks like that's about to change, so once again you can puff your chest out, caress your guns and take your place among your proud fellow 'Mericans.