kallend 2,148 #76 February 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteBut I belive Im not the norm. I would like to belive that if my live, or those if my "family" (those close to me), were in MORTAL danger I could defent them/myself. Well, it's good that you believe that you aren't the norm because the statistics about "the norm" show that more guns kept in the household are used against one's own faimly members than trespassers. But you're right, you're probably exceptional. Arrh, not meaning to disrespect you or anything man, but this isn't the best argument for guns. Benny, have you ever wondered where you first "heard" about this supposed increased risk to family members due to having a gun in the house? Most likely, it trickled to you from its source: the long-discredited and debunked "study" by Dr. Arthur Kellerman, who was funded by the very anti-gun, agenda-driven CDC. Can you post an unbiased source for (a) the debunking, and (b) the CDC's agenda. Thanks.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #77 February 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteBut I belive Im not the norm. I would like to belive that if my live, or those if my "family" (those close to me), were in MORTAL danger I could defent them/myself. Well, it's good that you believe that you aren't the norm because the statistics about "the norm" show that more guns kept in the household are used against one's own faimly members than trespassers. But you're right, you're probably exceptional. Arrh, not meaning to disrespect you or anything man, but this isn't the best argument for guns. i've long had issue with that sudy as well. I grew up in a house with more than 50 pistols and an obscene number of rifles and shotguns, the only rounds fired in anger (and actually the only rounds ever fired in any house i've lived in) killed an intruder in the foyer. Most of my extended family has large numbers of firearms in their homes as well without incident. apparently the 'problem' is one of education not availability... i'd love to see the raw data, because i'm sure i'm sure there are major issues with the way its collected solely based on observations and discussions with LOTS of gun owners.. hell we have quite a few here..any 'friendly fire' incidents? given that we are a rather diverse group we should have several if those statistics are accurate at all...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #78 February 2, 2004 QuoteSo now I see you're putting words in the founding father's mouths,asking us how we'd interpret those words and claiming yourself to be some kind of a late-18th century grammatical expert... Personally, I don't think any of us really have fucking clue what they were saying... No, I'm not an expert on 18th-century English in America. But I do now how to read what has been written by those kinds of experts. And that's where I got that information. I also know how to read history, such as the Federalist Papers. They're available at any college bookstore, and even on the internet. If you bother to read such sources, the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment is abundently clear - it is an individual right to keep and bear arms. The only way you can say that you have no "f**king clue", is to ignore all the evidence. Quotewhat they were saying... the people should have a reasonable right to have arms, given the need for a well regulated militia. Thank you for now acknowledging that the 2nd Amendment was not intended only for the states, and recognizes the right for the militia, which is "the people". QuoteThey probably meant it as a way for states to protect themselves against the federal government, not so much for individual sake. That is true, but also for personal self-defense. Hey, you're starting to learn! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #79 February 2, 2004 QuoteSupreme Court Cases: UNITED STATES v. MILLER Here is my two cents worth on the Miller case. A quote from the case: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such instrument" First, Miller lost the case because he died before his case came before the court, and his lawyer didn't even bother to show up. So it was a default judgement, where only the prosecution presented evidence. That is what they refer to with their statement "in the absence of any evidence". If the lawyer had done his job, he could have quite easily proven that short barrelled shotguns have been used in military service - trench warfare for example, since before World War I. So the decision was wrong for this reason alone, because they went with only one side of the story. Second, it is quaint that the best Supreme Court case the anti-gun folks can come up with against the 2nd Amendment, is one where the pro-gun team didn't even show up, and they won only by default. It's like declaring victory at the Super Bowl, because the other team was stuck on a bus in traffic and couldn't make the opening game whistle. Next, if the only legal guns are those in use by a Federal or state militia, then every citizen should be able to own so-called assault weapons, like M16's and AR15's. Yet they were banned by Billy Bob Clinton. So according to the anti-gun interpretation, President Clinton violated the Constitution. Finally, the case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun. Thus, Miller confirms that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, as all citizens are considered to comprise the militia. More on the Miller case Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #80 February 2, 2004 QuotePersonally, I don't think any of us really have fucking clue what they were saying other than that the people should have a reasonable right to have arms, given the need for a well regulated militia... Personally I'm with Chris Rock, make all bullets cost $5000... You seem to have a split personality. At first you acknowledge that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. But then your liberal personality kicks-in and decides that despite that fact, you want to institute measures to effectively ban all usage of guns anyway. This is typical of the kind of illogic often used by the anti-gun forces. And of course, the idea wouldn't work anyway. The criminals would just steal or make their own cartridges, which they need to commit crimes. They only need one cartridge to make a credible threat in a robbery. The only people that would be affected, would be the 80-million law-abiding gun owners, who would no longer be able to go to the shooing range for sport, or to defend themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #81 February 2, 2004 QuoteNever before in history have government forces been so overwhelmingly superior to armed civilians in weaponry, communications, and intelligence gathering capability. The weapons you own and frequently write about in adoring terms are peashooters in comparison. That doesn't change the fact that history has proven numerous times, and may be doing so yet again right now, that an undergunned but determined guerilla force, can defeat larger better-armed military forces. "Those who do not learn the lessons of history, are doomed to repeat them." The other factors involved in such a confrontation have already been discussed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #82 February 2, 2004 QuoteThe only people that would be affected, would be the 80-million law-abiding gun owners, who would no longer be able to go to the shooing range for sport, or to defend themselves. But John, if we ban all guns I won't have a need to defend myself with a gun. Right? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #83 February 2, 2004 Quotethe statistics about "the norm" show that more guns kept in the household are used against one's own faimly members than trespassers. Please cite your source for that statistic. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath waiting for it. We're still waiting for you to cite some other stuff too, for which you never bother to follow through on... Provide your source for where that came from, and we can talk about it. But the statistic is wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #84 February 2, 2004 Quotehow about some thought about the rest of the Bill of Rights? As I see it, the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Amendments have all been diluted to a great extent, but no-one seems to care as much about those. Well gosh, Kallend, if you want to talk about one of those other Amendments, then offer an opinion on one of them so we have a starting point. Go ahead, make our day; dare to offer an opinion of your own. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #85 February 2, 2004 QuoteQuote Next, if the only legal guns are those in use by a Federal or state militia, then every citizen should be able to own so-called assault weapons, like M16's and AR15's. Yet they were banned by Billy Bob Clinton. So according to the anti-gun interpretation, President Clinton violated the Constitution. In that case, since his decision appeared to incense the gun lobby so much, why didn't they challenge it in court and have it declared unconstitutional? Wouldn't the Supremes see the logic of your argument and throw out the law?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AdD 1 #86 February 2, 2004 QuotePlease cite your source for that statistic. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath waiting for it. John, I cited that in our other arguement. I think it was the 46 to 1 thing. It just means that a gun is more likely to kill a family member than a trespasser. Not necessarily meaning that a homicide is involved. It includes suicide.Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #87 February 2, 2004 QuoteIt's reassuring to know that you have been blessed with the ability to divine with absolute certainty what others have failed to reach agreement on in a couple of centuries. Agreement was reached centuries ago. It has only been in the last 50 years or so that the anti-gun forces have started to create Orwellian "Newspeak" to try and erase history and redefine the 2nd Amendment in their own terms, more favorable to their position. Testimony Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution et al. of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Sept. 23, 1998. by Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Eight years ago, I got into an argument with a nonlawyer acquaintance about the Second Amendment. The Amendment, this person fervently announced, clearly protects an individual right. Not so, I argued to him, thinking him to be something of a blowhard and even a bit of a kook. Three years ago, I discovered, to my surprise and mild chagrin, that this supposed kook was entirely right. In preparing to teach a law school seminar on firearms regulation (one of the only about half a dozen such classes that I know of at U.S. law schools), I found that the historical evidence overwhelmingly points to one and only one conclusion: The Second Amendment does indeed secure an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Text of the Amendment Refers to an Individual Right The Second Amendment, like the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, refers to a "right of the people," not a right of the states or a right of the National Guard. The First Amendment guarantees the people's right to assemble; the Fourth Amendment protects the people's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; the Ninth Amendment refers to the people's unenumerated rights. These rights are clearly individual -- they protect "the right of the people" by protecting the right of each person. This strongly suggests that the similarly-worded Second Amendment likewise secures an individual right. What about the seemingly odd two-clause construction, which some commentators have called "unusual," "special," and "nearly unique"? It turns out that there's nothing odd about it at all. During the Framing Era, dozens of individual rights provisions in state constitutions were structured the same way, providing a justification clause explaining the right, and then an operative clause securing the right. The 1842 Rhode Island Constitution's Free Press Clause, for instance, reads; "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments of any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty..." Just as with the Second Amendment, the second clause secures a right, while the first justifies it to the public. And the two clauses of the Amendment are entirely consistent. The second clause guarantees a "right of the people," which is the right of each individual. The first clause explains that this right helps further a "well-regulated militia," a legal term of art that means "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" (here I quote from the New York Ratifying Convention's proposal that eventually became the Second Amendment) -- the entire armed citizenry, not some small National Guard- type unit. The current Militia Act, enacted in 1956 and derived from the original 1792 Militia Act, defines the "militia" as including all able-bodied male citizens from 17 to 45; given the Court's sex equality jurisprudence, I feel comfortable saying that every able-bodied citizen from age 17 to 45, male or female, is a member of the militia. This is quite consistent with the second clause's securing an individual right to every person. Contemporaneous Constitutions and Commentaries Unanimously Treat the Right as an Individual Right Contemporaneous evidence from the late 1700s and 1800s unanimously supports the individual rights reading of the text. It's widely agreed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was an expanded version of a similar right in the 1688 English Bill of Rights. England, of course, didn't have states, so the English right couldn't have been a states' right; Sir William Blackstone, whose 1765 Commentaries were tremendously influential in Revolutionary Era America, described the right as a "right of the subject," an obviously individual rights characterization. Many early state Bills of Rights also protected the right to keep and bear arms; since these rights were protections *against* state governments, they surely must have protected individuals, not the states themselves. And many of the constitutions made this quite explicit. The 1790 Pennsylvania and the 1792 Kentucky Constitutions described the right as "the right of the citizens"; the 1796 Tennessee Constitution spoke of "the right of the freemen"; the 1817 Mississippi, 1818 Connecticut, 1819 Maine, and 1819 Alabama Constitution specifically referred to the right of "every citizen." The 1776 Pennsylvania, 1777 Vermont, 1802 Ohio, 1816 Indiana, and 1820 Missouri Constitutions spoke of "the people['s] right to bear arms for the defence of themselves," referring to the people individually ("themselves") rather than collectively ("itself"). Throughout the 1800s, these unambiguously individual rights were seen as directly analogous to the Second Amendment. The same goes for the commentators of the 1800s. St. George Tucker (1803) treated the Second Amendment right as equivalent to Blackstone's "right of the subject"; William Rawle (1829) did likewise. Justice Joseph Story (1833 and 1840) called it a "right of the citizens." Thomas Cooley (1880 and 1898) took exactly the same individual right view; so did the 1866 Freedmen's Bureau Act, which specifically secured to "all the citizens" "the constitutional right to bear arms" as part of their "personal liberty." A recent exhaustive study reveals that there was exactly *one* statement in the 1800s cases or commentaries supporting the collective rights view, a concurring opinion in an 1842 Arkansas state court case. These commentators also make clear exactly what purpose the right was thought to serve: Blackstone, Tucker, Story, and Cooley unanimously agree that private firearms ownership was meant as a deterrent to government tyranny. In the words of Justice Story; "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." A chilling thought, perhaps, and one that may not be in keeping with the temper of our times -- but the Framers thought that leaving governments (state or federal) with a monopoly on armed power was even a more chilling prospect. Though the Second Amendment grants no right to revolt with impunity against tyranny (no constitution can do that), it does secure private ownership of firearms as a deterrent to such tyranny; this is the unanimous judgment of all the early sources. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #88 February 2, 2004 QuotePersonally, I am far more concerned with the erosion of constitutional rights other than my right to bear arms. My mind and voice are far more powerful than any bullet, and recent threats to my ability to use them are greater. Then I suppose you agree with the NRA that the Campaign Finance Reform Act which bans advocacy advertisements within 60 days of an election, is a serious violation of the principle of free speech? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #89 February 2, 2004 QuoteCan you post an unbiased source for (a) the debunking, and (b) the CDC's agenda. It has been debunked based upon objective facts and logic. The sources are irrelevant. A college professor should know that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #90 February 2, 2004 QuoteBut John, if we ban all guns I won't have a need to defend myself with a gun. Right? Yeah... Rrrright... As soon as someone figures out how to get the criminals to comply with a gun ban, then maybe there will be something more to talk about in that regard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #91 February 2, 2004 QuoteIn that case, since his decision appeared to incense the gun lobby so much, why didn't they challenge it in court and have it declared unconstitutional? Wouldn't the Supremes see the logic of your argument and throw out the law? The Supreme Court routinely refuses to accept such gun cases for review. They just recently turned down a request to review a 9th Circuit decision, which is contrary to rulings from other circuits. Thus, they let stand conflicting rulings from different courts at the same level! So the federal law means different things, depending upon where you happen to live. And that's a sad state of affairs. The Supreme Court justices are cowards when it comes to settling this issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #92 February 2, 2004 QuoteQuotePlease cite your source for that statistic. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath waiting for it. John, I cited that in our other arguement. I think it was the 46 to 1 thing. Yes, I suspect that is the study to which "bennie" is referring. However, since he hasn't told us where he got that statistic, we don't know for sure. If he comes back with some specific citation for it, then we can address the topic in detail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #93 February 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteCan you post an unbiased source for (a) the debunking, and (b) the CDC's agenda. It has been debunked based upon objective facts and logic. The sources are irrelevant. A college professor should know that. SO you can't. Thought so.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #94 February 2, 2004 QuoteAs soon as someone figures out how to get the criminals to comply with a gun ban, then maybe there will be something more to talk about in that regard. I have a solution for that, too. Policemen on every corner, in every room of every building, on every train, plane, boat, and automobile. I think it just might work! We'll get those guns out of the hands of criminals, just you watch! Sheesh John, this really is simple, I don't know why anyone hadn't thought of it before. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #95 February 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteIn that case, since his decision appeared to incense the gun lobby so much, why didn't they challenge it in court and have it declared unconstitutional? Wouldn't the Supremes see the logic of your argument and throw out the law? The Supreme Court routinely refuses to accept such gun cases for review. They just recently turned down a request to review a 9th Circuit decision, which is contrary to rulings from other circuits. Thus, they let stand conflicting rulings from different courts at the same level! So the federal law means different things, depending upon where you happen to live. And that's a sad state of affairs. The Supreme Court justices are cowards when it comes to settling this issue. The Supremes' decision NOT to act on the ruling of a lower court is still a legally binding decision to accept that ruling.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #96 February 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteCan you post an unbiased source for (a) the debunking, and (b) the CDC's agenda. It has been debunked based upon objective facts and logic. The sources are irrelevant. A college professor should know that. SO you can't. Thought so. Objective facts and logic are unbiased. It is interesting that you are so worried about sources, rather than objective facts and logic. That seems to reveal an illogical bias of your own... Oh, and while I'm at it, there is additional evidence here of your bias: When it comes to a pro-gun statistic, you are quick to jump in and demand the name of the unbiased source. Yet when the original anti-gun statistic was posted, you were strangely silent. You have a double standard on your requirement for evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #97 February 2, 2004 QuoteI have a solution for that, too. Policemen on every corner, in every room of every building, on every train, plane, boat, and automobile. I think it just might work! We'll get those guns out of the hands of criminals, just you watch! Sheesh John, this really is simple, I don't know why anyone hadn't thought of it before. Yes, as soon as the government assigns to me a 24-hour per day personal bodyguard, sworn to die if necessary in my defense, then I'll consider surrenduring my concealed handgun carry license. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #98 February 2, 2004 QuoteThe Supremes' decision NOT to act on the ruling of a lower court is still a legally binding decision to accept that ruling. Incorrect. It says nothing about the merits of the lower court decision, and the Supreme Court justices can deny certiorari for any reason at all. It is not a "legally binding decision" on their part, because denied cases have not been formally reviewed. All they've done is scan it to see if it meets the guidelines for the kind of cases over which they have jurisdiction, and if the case is important enough for them to spend time upon. All it does is allow the lower court ruling to stand as is. Reference #1 Reference #2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #99 February 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe Supremes' decision NOT to act on the ruling of a lower court is still a legally binding decision to accept that ruling. Incorrect. It says nothing about the merits of the lower court decision, and the Supreme Court justices can deny certiorari for any reason at all. It is not a "legally binding decision" on their part, because denied cases have not been formally reviewed. All they've done is scan it to see if it meets the guidelines for the kind of cases over which they have jurisdiction, and if the case is important enough for them to spend time upon. All it does is allow the lower court ruling to stand as is. Reference #1 Reference #2 Don't be silly. If the decision of the lower court stands, it is legally binding. If the decision of the lower courts in Texas is capital punishment and the SC refuses a final review, the defendant dies. How much more binding can it get?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #100 February 3, 2004 QuoteDon't be silly. If the decision of the lower court stands, it is legally binding. Yes, the decision of the lower court is binding. But that is not quite what you said: "The Supremes' decision NOT to act on the ruling of a lower court is still a legally binding decision to accept that ruling." You implied that by refusing to hear a lower court's case, that the Supreme Court was accepting the lower decision as correct, and putting their own stamp of approval on it. That is not the case. It does not mean that the Supreme Court necessarily agrees with the lower court, nor are they adding any "legal binding" to what already is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 4 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
AdD 1 #86 February 2, 2004 QuotePlease cite your source for that statistic. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath waiting for it. John, I cited that in our other arguement. I think it was the 46 to 1 thing. It just means that a gun is more likely to kill a family member than a trespasser. Not necessarily meaning that a homicide is involved. It includes suicide.Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #87 February 2, 2004 QuoteIt's reassuring to know that you have been blessed with the ability to divine with absolute certainty what others have failed to reach agreement on in a couple of centuries. Agreement was reached centuries ago. It has only been in the last 50 years or so that the anti-gun forces have started to create Orwellian "Newspeak" to try and erase history and redefine the 2nd Amendment in their own terms, more favorable to their position. Testimony Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution et al. of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Sept. 23, 1998. by Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Eight years ago, I got into an argument with a nonlawyer acquaintance about the Second Amendment. The Amendment, this person fervently announced, clearly protects an individual right. Not so, I argued to him, thinking him to be something of a blowhard and even a bit of a kook. Three years ago, I discovered, to my surprise and mild chagrin, that this supposed kook was entirely right. In preparing to teach a law school seminar on firearms regulation (one of the only about half a dozen such classes that I know of at U.S. law schools), I found that the historical evidence overwhelmingly points to one and only one conclusion: The Second Amendment does indeed secure an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Text of the Amendment Refers to an Individual Right The Second Amendment, like the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, refers to a "right of the people," not a right of the states or a right of the National Guard. The First Amendment guarantees the people's right to assemble; the Fourth Amendment protects the people's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; the Ninth Amendment refers to the people's unenumerated rights. These rights are clearly individual -- they protect "the right of the people" by protecting the right of each person. This strongly suggests that the similarly-worded Second Amendment likewise secures an individual right. What about the seemingly odd two-clause construction, which some commentators have called "unusual," "special," and "nearly unique"? It turns out that there's nothing odd about it at all. During the Framing Era, dozens of individual rights provisions in state constitutions were structured the same way, providing a justification clause explaining the right, and then an operative clause securing the right. The 1842 Rhode Island Constitution's Free Press Clause, for instance, reads; "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments of any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty..." Just as with the Second Amendment, the second clause secures a right, while the first justifies it to the public. And the two clauses of the Amendment are entirely consistent. The second clause guarantees a "right of the people," which is the right of each individual. The first clause explains that this right helps further a "well-regulated militia," a legal term of art that means "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" (here I quote from the New York Ratifying Convention's proposal that eventually became the Second Amendment) -- the entire armed citizenry, not some small National Guard- type unit. The current Militia Act, enacted in 1956 and derived from the original 1792 Militia Act, defines the "militia" as including all able-bodied male citizens from 17 to 45; given the Court's sex equality jurisprudence, I feel comfortable saying that every able-bodied citizen from age 17 to 45, male or female, is a member of the militia. This is quite consistent with the second clause's securing an individual right to every person. Contemporaneous Constitutions and Commentaries Unanimously Treat the Right as an Individual Right Contemporaneous evidence from the late 1700s and 1800s unanimously supports the individual rights reading of the text. It's widely agreed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was an expanded version of a similar right in the 1688 English Bill of Rights. England, of course, didn't have states, so the English right couldn't have been a states' right; Sir William Blackstone, whose 1765 Commentaries were tremendously influential in Revolutionary Era America, described the right as a "right of the subject," an obviously individual rights characterization. Many early state Bills of Rights also protected the right to keep and bear arms; since these rights were protections *against* state governments, they surely must have protected individuals, not the states themselves. And many of the constitutions made this quite explicit. The 1790 Pennsylvania and the 1792 Kentucky Constitutions described the right as "the right of the citizens"; the 1796 Tennessee Constitution spoke of "the right of the freemen"; the 1817 Mississippi, 1818 Connecticut, 1819 Maine, and 1819 Alabama Constitution specifically referred to the right of "every citizen." The 1776 Pennsylvania, 1777 Vermont, 1802 Ohio, 1816 Indiana, and 1820 Missouri Constitutions spoke of "the people['s] right to bear arms for the defence of themselves," referring to the people individually ("themselves") rather than collectively ("itself"). Throughout the 1800s, these unambiguously individual rights were seen as directly analogous to the Second Amendment. The same goes for the commentators of the 1800s. St. George Tucker (1803) treated the Second Amendment right as equivalent to Blackstone's "right of the subject"; William Rawle (1829) did likewise. Justice Joseph Story (1833 and 1840) called it a "right of the citizens." Thomas Cooley (1880 and 1898) took exactly the same individual right view; so did the 1866 Freedmen's Bureau Act, which specifically secured to "all the citizens" "the constitutional right to bear arms" as part of their "personal liberty." A recent exhaustive study reveals that there was exactly *one* statement in the 1800s cases or commentaries supporting the collective rights view, a concurring opinion in an 1842 Arkansas state court case. These commentators also make clear exactly what purpose the right was thought to serve: Blackstone, Tucker, Story, and Cooley unanimously agree that private firearms ownership was meant as a deterrent to government tyranny. In the words of Justice Story; "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." A chilling thought, perhaps, and one that may not be in keeping with the temper of our times -- but the Framers thought that leaving governments (state or federal) with a monopoly on armed power was even a more chilling prospect. Though the Second Amendment grants no right to revolt with impunity against tyranny (no constitution can do that), it does secure private ownership of firearms as a deterrent to such tyranny; this is the unanimous judgment of all the early sources. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #88 February 2, 2004 QuotePersonally, I am far more concerned with the erosion of constitutional rights other than my right to bear arms. My mind and voice are far more powerful than any bullet, and recent threats to my ability to use them are greater. Then I suppose you agree with the NRA that the Campaign Finance Reform Act which bans advocacy advertisements within 60 days of an election, is a serious violation of the principle of free speech? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #89 February 2, 2004 QuoteCan you post an unbiased source for (a) the debunking, and (b) the CDC's agenda. It has been debunked based upon objective facts and logic. The sources are irrelevant. A college professor should know that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #90 February 2, 2004 QuoteBut John, if we ban all guns I won't have a need to defend myself with a gun. Right? Yeah... Rrrright... As soon as someone figures out how to get the criminals to comply with a gun ban, then maybe there will be something more to talk about in that regard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #91 February 2, 2004 QuoteIn that case, since his decision appeared to incense the gun lobby so much, why didn't they challenge it in court and have it declared unconstitutional? Wouldn't the Supremes see the logic of your argument and throw out the law? The Supreme Court routinely refuses to accept such gun cases for review. They just recently turned down a request to review a 9th Circuit decision, which is contrary to rulings from other circuits. Thus, they let stand conflicting rulings from different courts at the same level! So the federal law means different things, depending upon where you happen to live. And that's a sad state of affairs. The Supreme Court justices are cowards when it comes to settling this issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #92 February 2, 2004 QuoteQuotePlease cite your source for that statistic. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath waiting for it. John, I cited that in our other arguement. I think it was the 46 to 1 thing. Yes, I suspect that is the study to which "bennie" is referring. However, since he hasn't told us where he got that statistic, we don't know for sure. If he comes back with some specific citation for it, then we can address the topic in detail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #93 February 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteCan you post an unbiased source for (a) the debunking, and (b) the CDC's agenda. It has been debunked based upon objective facts and logic. The sources are irrelevant. A college professor should know that. SO you can't. Thought so.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #94 February 2, 2004 QuoteAs soon as someone figures out how to get the criminals to comply with a gun ban, then maybe there will be something more to talk about in that regard. I have a solution for that, too. Policemen on every corner, in every room of every building, on every train, plane, boat, and automobile. I think it just might work! We'll get those guns out of the hands of criminals, just you watch! Sheesh John, this really is simple, I don't know why anyone hadn't thought of it before. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #95 February 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteIn that case, since his decision appeared to incense the gun lobby so much, why didn't they challenge it in court and have it declared unconstitutional? Wouldn't the Supremes see the logic of your argument and throw out the law? The Supreme Court routinely refuses to accept such gun cases for review. They just recently turned down a request to review a 9th Circuit decision, which is contrary to rulings from other circuits. Thus, they let stand conflicting rulings from different courts at the same level! So the federal law means different things, depending upon where you happen to live. And that's a sad state of affairs. The Supreme Court justices are cowards when it comes to settling this issue. The Supremes' decision NOT to act on the ruling of a lower court is still a legally binding decision to accept that ruling.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #96 February 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteCan you post an unbiased source for (a) the debunking, and (b) the CDC's agenda. It has been debunked based upon objective facts and logic. The sources are irrelevant. A college professor should know that. SO you can't. Thought so. Objective facts and logic are unbiased. It is interesting that you are so worried about sources, rather than objective facts and logic. That seems to reveal an illogical bias of your own... Oh, and while I'm at it, there is additional evidence here of your bias: When it comes to a pro-gun statistic, you are quick to jump in and demand the name of the unbiased source. Yet when the original anti-gun statistic was posted, you were strangely silent. You have a double standard on your requirement for evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #97 February 2, 2004 QuoteI have a solution for that, too. Policemen on every corner, in every room of every building, on every train, plane, boat, and automobile. I think it just might work! We'll get those guns out of the hands of criminals, just you watch! Sheesh John, this really is simple, I don't know why anyone hadn't thought of it before. Yes, as soon as the government assigns to me a 24-hour per day personal bodyguard, sworn to die if necessary in my defense, then I'll consider surrenduring my concealed handgun carry license. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #98 February 2, 2004 QuoteThe Supremes' decision NOT to act on the ruling of a lower court is still a legally binding decision to accept that ruling. Incorrect. It says nothing about the merits of the lower court decision, and the Supreme Court justices can deny certiorari for any reason at all. It is not a "legally binding decision" on their part, because denied cases have not been formally reviewed. All they've done is scan it to see if it meets the guidelines for the kind of cases over which they have jurisdiction, and if the case is important enough for them to spend time upon. All it does is allow the lower court ruling to stand as is. Reference #1 Reference #2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #99 February 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe Supremes' decision NOT to act on the ruling of a lower court is still a legally binding decision to accept that ruling. Incorrect. It says nothing about the merits of the lower court decision, and the Supreme Court justices can deny certiorari for any reason at all. It is not a "legally binding decision" on their part, because denied cases have not been formally reviewed. All they've done is scan it to see if it meets the guidelines for the kind of cases over which they have jurisdiction, and if the case is important enough for them to spend time upon. All it does is allow the lower court ruling to stand as is. Reference #1 Reference #2 Don't be silly. If the decision of the lower court stands, it is legally binding. If the decision of the lower courts in Texas is capital punishment and the SC refuses a final review, the defendant dies. How much more binding can it get?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #100 February 3, 2004 QuoteDon't be silly. If the decision of the lower court stands, it is legally binding. Yes, the decision of the lower court is binding. But that is not quite what you said: "The Supremes' decision NOT to act on the ruling of a lower court is still a legally binding decision to accept that ruling." You implied that by refusing to hear a lower court's case, that the Supreme Court was accepting the lower decision as correct, and putting their own stamp of approval on it. That is not the case. It does not mean that the Supreme Court necessarily agrees with the lower court, nor are they adding any "legal binding" to what already is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
