Justices agree on right to own guns

[Halofan48]

Bottom line, your thoughts of gun control reducing crime drastically is nothing but a pacifist fantasy. Wake up and smell the cordite.

Ugh, someone bring up the statistics of murder rates in countries with and without fire arms please.

It's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than it is to kill someone with a firearm.

[Kite]

Quote by: Halofan48 Ugh, someone bring up the statistics of murder rates in countries with and without fire arms please. It's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than it is to kill someone with a firearm.

Honestly are we going to go here AGAIN? There are way too many variables in any given country to say that gun control definitively reduces murder rate. Size, population, battling ethnic/religious factions, police force, theres simply too much.

Also, its really quite easy to kill someone with a knife, it just takes a little more effort and skill than wielding a gun. Hell, I know a few bare hands techniques to kill people that don't take much effort. Taking away one killing tool isn't going to make much of a difference if you're really bound and determined to kill someone.

[Halofan48]

Lets look at it like this Kite. In order to kill someone with a knife, you have to be very close to them (unless its a throwing knife, and then you need to be extremely skilled at throwing a knife). They have to physically fight the person. The person they are trying to kill might also be able to run from then. Now lets look at a gun. It's practically impossible to out run a bullet. You can shoot someone from 20 feet with little skill, someone with 50 feet with some skill, and someone from 100 with a moderate amount of skill. It is far easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with a knife.

Lets compare it like this. There are two people. Both plan on killing someone. One gets a knife, the other gets a pistol. Neither have any training with fighting with their weapon. Which do you think is more likely to succeed in killing a person?

Taking away one killing tool isn't going to make much of a difference if you're really bound and determined to kill someone.

Again, crimes of passion. you walk in on your spouse, and their sleeping with another man. If you have a gun, you might, in a fit of rage, shoot them both, then realize shortly after what you've done and feel terrible and go to jail. Now replace the gun with a knife. Now , in the little time that your enraged, you have to kill both your spouse and the person their with with a knife. This would be a LOT more difficult, and you are also more likely to calm down before you do end up killing someone, since it would take more time to kill a person with a knife than with a gun.

[Roxdog]

Quote by: Halofan48 Ugh, someone bring up the statistics of murder rates in countries with and without fire arms please. It's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than it is to kill someone with a firearm.

Yes, please do bring them up. Kindly show us how gun crimes in the UK have gone UP since they banned ALL GUNS. Your logic has nothing to do with what is being discussed. Your opinion on the efficiency of knives VS guns is completely irrelevent to the topic.

Thanks. :)

[Roxdog]

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?

Ha...I've not only pointed out that you are either completely clueless or a LIAR about the origins of the Bill of Rights, but I've shown that your "interpretation" of the law is simply false....and stupid. :)

[Halofan48]

Your opinion on the efficiency of knives VS guns is completely irrelevent to the topic.

'

The knife comment was a response to another post. Read the post before mine, you'll see what i was responding to...

Also, Rox, you might want to stop the personal comments. The mods are getting tired on seeing them. This is a debate forum, not a chat room. Anyway, back on topic.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Kite You own many deadly weapons, many ways of killing people.

Nah, the only "Weapon" I own is my .40 cal Beretta. It's the only thing I possess that was invented, designed and built for the purpose of easily killing from a distance. Everything else you can pretty much easily get out of the way of or run away from.

Note that the Constitution makes no claim to your right to bear bricks, knives or big sticks. It's only firearms that the founders considered as an effective, purpose built deadly weapon.

Quote by: Kite Bottom line, your thoughts of gun control reducing crime drastically is nothing but a pacifist fantasy. Wake up and smell the cordite.

And once again I'll refer you to the murder rates of other free, democratic, 1st world nations that, unlike us, maintain reasonable gun control.



Obviously human nature, combined with a more limited access to the most efficient of all weapons... guns... seems to equal less violent, murderous societies.

And while I actually like guns, I'd rather wake up and smell the coffee, thank you very much.

Quote by: Kite Honestly are we going to go here AGAIN? There are way too many variables in any given country to say that gun control definitively reduces murder rate. Size, population, battling ethnic/religious factions, police force, theres simply too much

When you're looking at murder rates, access to guns -- which make it really easy -- strikes me as a no brainer.

For instance, note that Switzerland -- a peaceful, pastoral, homogenous country, hasn't fought a war in centuries, doesn't even have an army but is has a famously broad gun ownership -- and they're number 8 on the gun death rate... just behind basket cases like Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Norther Ireland... basket cases we're AHEAD of.

Quote by: Kite Ha...I've not only pointed out that you are either completely clueless or a LIAR about the origins of the Bill of Rights, but I've shown that your "interpretation" of the law is simply false....and stupid. :)

LOL!!! Yeah, Roxy, you've shown my "interpretation" of law is false and stupid... by calling it false and stupid.

The thing is, I haven't interpreted ANYTHING. The U.S. Supreme Court and the majority of the Federal Courts have. I'm simply pointing out that fact.

.

[Sonart]

.

And for your information, Roxy... here's what the 2nd Amendment means...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"1. The Text and Structure of the Second Amendment Demonstrate that the Amendment's Purpose is to Preserve Effective State Militias; That Purpose Helps Shape the Content of the Amendment.

The Second Amendment states in its entirety: "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." U.S. CONST. amend. II. As commentators on all sides of the debate regarding the amendment's meaning have acknowledged, the language of the amendment alone does not conclusively resolve the question of its scope. . . . What renders the language and structure of the amendment particularly striking is the existence of a prefatory clause, a syntactical device that is absent from all other provisions of the Constitution, including the nine other provisions of the Bill of Rights. Our analysis thus must address not only the meaning of each of the two clauses of the amendment but the unique relationship that exists between them.

a. The Meaning of the Amendment's First Clause: "A Well-Regulated Militia Being Necessary to the Security of A Free State."

The first or prefatory clause of the Second Amendment sets forth the amendment's purpose and intent. An important aspect of ascertaining that purpose and intent is determining the import of the term "militia." Many advocates of the traditional individual rights model, including the Fifth Circuit, have taken the position that the term "militia" was meant to refer to all citizens, and, therefore, that the first clause simply restates the second in more specific terms. . . . We agree with the Fifth Circuit in a very limited respect. We agree that the interpretation of the first clause and the extent to which that clause shapes the content of the second depends in large part on the meaning of the term "militia." If militia refers, as the Fifth Circuit suggests, to all persons in a state, rather than to the state military entity, the first clause would have one meaning -- a meaning that would support the concept of traditional individual rights. If the term refers instead, as we believe, to the entity [*37] ordinarily identified by that designation, the state-created and -organized military force, it would likely be necessary to attribute a considerably different meaning to the first clause of the Second Amendment and ultimately to the amendment as a whole.

We believe the answer to the definitional question is the one that most persons would expect: "militia" refers to a state military force. We reach our conclusion not only because that is the ordinary meaning of the word, but because contemporaneously enacted provisions of the Constitution that contain the word "militia" consistently use the term to refer to a state military entity, not to the people of the state as a whole. We look to such contemporaneously enacted provisions for an understanding of words used in the Second Amendment in part because this is an interpretive principle recently explicated by the Supreme Court in a case involving another word that appears in that amendment -- the word "people." That same interpretive principle is unquestionably applicable when we construe the word "militia."

"Militia" appears repeatedly in the first and second Articles of the Constitution. From its use in those sections, it is apparent that the drafters were referring in the Constitution to the second of two government-established and -controlled military forces. Those forces were, first, the national army and navy, which were subject to civilian control shared by the president and Congress, and, second, the state militias, which were to be "essentially organized and under control of the states, but subject to regulation by Congress and to 'federalization' at the command of the president." Paul Finkelman, "A Well Regulated Militia": The Second Amendment in Historical Perspective, 76 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 195, 204 (2000).


b. The Meaning of the Amendment's Second Clause: "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall Not Be Infringed."

Having determined that the [*46] first clause of the Second Amendment declares the importance of state militias to the proper functioning of the new constitutional system, we now turn to the meaning of the second clause, the effect the first clause has on the second, and the meaning of the amendment as a whole. The second clause -- "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" -- is not free from ambiguity. We consider it highly significant, however, that the second clause does not purport to protect the right to "possess" or "own" arms, but rather to "keep and bear" arms. This choice of words is important because the phrase "bear arms" is a phrase that customarily relates to a military function.

Historical research shows that the use of the term "bear arms" generally referred to the carrying of arms in military service -- not the private use of arms for personal purposes. For instance, Professor Dorf, after canvassing documents from the founding era, concluded that "overwhelmingly, the term had a military connotation." Dorf, supra, at 314. Our own review of historical documents confirms the professor's report. . . .


c. The Relationship Between the Two Clauses.

Our next step is to consider the relationship between the two clauses, and the meaning of the amendment as a whole. As we have noted, and as is evident from the structure of the Second Amendment, the first clause explains the purpose of the more substantive clause that follows, or, to put it differently, it explains the reason necessitating or warranting the enactment of the substantive provision. Moreover, in this case, the first clause does more than simply state the amendment's purpose or justification: it also helps shape and define the meaning of the substantive provision contained in the second clause, and thus of the amendment itself. . . .

When the second clause is read in light of the first, so as to implement the policy set [*55] forth in the preamble, we believe that the most plausible construction of the Second Amendment is that it seeks to ensure the existence of effective state militias in which the people may exercise their right to bear arms, and forbids the federal government to interfere with such exercise. This conclusion is based in part on the premise, explicitly set forth in the text of the amendment, that the maintenance of effective state militias is essential to the preservation of a free State, and in part on the historical meaning of the right that the operative clause protects -- the right to bear arms. In contrast, it seems reasonably clear that any fair reading of the "bear Arms" clause with the end in view of "assuring . . . the effectiveness of" the state militias cannot lead to the conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own or possess weapons for personal and other purposes. . . .

In the end, however, given the history and vigor of the dispute over the meaning of the Second Amendment's language, we would be reluctant to say that the text and structure alone establish with certainty which of the various views is correct. Fortunately, we have available a number of other important sources that can help us determine whether ours is the proper understanding. These include records that reflect the historical context in which the amendment was adopted, and documents that contain significant portions of the contemporary debates relating to the adoption and ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. . . .

In sum, our review of the historical record regarding the enactment of the Second Amendment reveals that the amendment was adopted to ensure that effective state militias would be maintained, thus preserving the people's right to bear arms. The militias, in turn, were viewed as critical to preserving the integrity of the states within the newly structured national government as well as to ensuring the freedom of the people from federal tyranny. Properly read, the historical record relating to the Second Amendment leaves little doubt as to its intended scope and effect.

3. Text, History, and Precedent All Support the Collective Rights View of the Amendment.


After conducting our analysis of the meaning of the words employed in the amendment's two clauses, and the effect of their relationship to each other, we concluded that the language and structure of the amendment strongly support the collective rights view. The preamble establishes that the amendment's purpose was to ensure the maintenance of effective state militias, and the amendment's operative clause establishes that this objective was to be attained by preserving the right of the people to "bear arms" -- to carry weapons in conjunction with their service in the militia. . . ."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

9th Circuit Court of Appeals - Silviera v. Lockyer, Dec. 2002

.

[Roxdog]

No, I've shown it is false and stupid by detailing why it is false, which in turn shows why your logic is stupid. Just admit you are winging this and really have no frame of reference. I mean, your comment on why the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment not only proves you are wrong about its meaning, but also that you lack basic understanding of US History. You were/are wrong and won't even acknowledge it, so people will only assume you are wrong about everything else.....which you are.

Once again, for people with zero comprehension skills: “The People” and the “well regulated militia” are two separate things. It is a very simple concept. Go read the words of the founders. Standing armies (regulated militias) are dangerous but necessary, therefore the people’s God given right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The end. Appointed men in drag are not necessary to “interpret” what is completely obvious and “self evident”.

[Roxdog]

And for your information, Roxy... here's what the 2nd Amendment means...

No. This is merely what you WANT it to mean. The meanings of words don't change with the weather...

[Halofan48]

Ok, stop it. No more personal comments. This is a debate forum. Insults will NOT be tolerated.

Back onto the topic.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Roxdog No, I've shown it is false and stupid by detailing why it is false, which in turn shows why your logic is stupid. Just admit you are winging this and really have no frame of reference. I mean, your comment on why the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment not only proves you are wrong about its meaning, but also that you lack basic understanding of US History. You were/are wrong and won't even acknowledge it, so people will only assume you are wrong about everything else.....which you are. Once again, for people with zero comprehension skills: “The People” and the “well regulated militia” are two separate things. It is a very simple concept. Go read the words of the founders. Standing armies (regulated militias) are dangerous but necessary, therefore the people’s God given right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The end. Appointed men in drag are not necessary to “interpret” what is completely obvious and “self evident”.

If you say "appointented men in drag" one more time, I will put a curse on you that will cause you to lose control of your bowels everytime someone says the word "the". It will be very unpleasant.

Ok, all kidding aside, can you not just have a reasonable discussion about this issue? I may disagree with Morgan, but we do not reduce the discussion to 1st grade level name calling. Can you please try that approach?

[Roxdog]

Fortunately, we have available a number of other important sources that can help us determine whether ours is the proper understanding. These include records that reflect the historical context in which the amendment was adopted, and documents that contain significant portions of the contemporary debates relating to the adoption and ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. . . . In sum, our review of the historical record regarding the enactment of the Second Amendment reveals that the amendment was adopted to ensure that effective state militias would be maintained

Complete and utter crap. Nothing within the first 100 years of the country's existance even comes close to showing the 2nd Amendment is some sort of "collective right" provided to the states. The Bill of Rights are INDIVIDUAL rights. That is ELEMENTARY. All the "records that reflect the historical context in which the amendment was adopted" prove that it is an INDIVIDUAL right. These people are either liars, or stupid. There is no gray area here...

[Roxdog]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Ok, all kidding aside, can you not just have a reasonable discussion about this issue? I may disagree with Morgan, but we do not reduce the discussion to 1st grade level name calling. Can you please try that approach?

Nope. I take treason very seriously. I can and never will take part in so-called "reasonable discussion" regarding the erosion of my God given rights. Sorry, I am not as compromising as you....

[Halofan48]

Roxdog, for the last time, stop with the insults. This is a debate forum. If you continue with the insults, you will receive penalties.

[Halofan48]

my God given rights

Where does it say in any Holy Text that your god has given you the right to own and maintain a firearm?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Roxdog Nope. I take treason very seriously. I can and never will take part in so-called "reasonable discussion" regarding the erosion of my God given rights. Sorry, I am not as compromising as you....

People who take things seriously approach them seriously. If the only counter you can muster to reasoned argument is name calling, you will not win in the market place of ideas and you do not deserve to win. Consider yourself reported.

[Roxdog]

Consider yourself reported.

Wow....man, you are a real loser. Run and tell Mommy...lol

Grow some freaking balls, dude...

I approached it seriously and then ran into a bunch of children bickering over falsehoods. The "name-calling" is apt and appropriate. Get over it.

[Roxdog]

Quote by: Halofan48 Roxdog, for the last time, stop with the insults. This is a debate forum. If you continue with the insults, you will receive penalties.

Hilarious. I get called names and talked down to, and when I defend myself and end up making them look like the simpletons they are, I get tattled on and told that I am the bad guy....

Bunch of losers...lol

[Roxdog]

Quote by: Halofan48 Where does it say in any Holy Text that your god has given you the right to own and maintain a firearm?

It is self evident and framed within the US Constitution. You should look into it. "God-given rights", "Natural rights", "Unalienable/inalienable rights", "Civil rights"...take you pick.