- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Best 2nd amendment piece I've seen in a while
Posted on 6/29/14 at 5:03 am to Ace Midnight
Posted on 6/29/14 at 5:03 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
So, because the document was imperfect, and the nation was imperfect, composed of imperfect human beings, we just throw the plain language of the document away?
I love when people use this as a means to justify their intentions of undoing the second amendment... If that's how they feel, what are their arguments for preserving the rest of the Bill of Rights and/or the entirety of the Constitution?
Also, the Supreme Court has ruled on this only in the past 15 years or so, because this was the easiest of the amendments to understand, when looked at in context. There was no reason to establish precedence, because the right of the people, established through the fourteenth amendment, had been made it pretty clear.
0
Posted on 6/29/14 at 5:04 am to rattlebucket
quote:
quote: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” -George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
This quote is under utilized, sets tone for any and all discussion on this topic, IMHO
Posted on 6/29/14 at 6:13 am to MisterSenator
quote:
quote: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people.
Again, what people is the amendment referring to? For what purpose? And are there limits? (in context to when it was written).
I'm just raising the point that whether or not the amendment provides every law abiding citizen the right to carry any "arm" is up for tough debate.
I'm not saying either is wrong or right.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 7:59 am to stewie
Posted on 6/29/14 at 9:35 am to stewie
quote:
This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purchase. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.
Via law.cornell.edu
Edit: on incorporation...
quote:
Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff inMcDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.
This post was edited on 6/29/14 at 9:38 am
Posted on 6/29/14 at 9:52 am to stewie
quote:
Again, what people is the amendment referring to? For what purpose? And are there limits? (in context to when it was written).
The same people mentioned in the first and fourth as well.. Or should we only grant those rights to select 'people'. I may like your views, that way we can shut up all those we don't agree with.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 9:56 am to stewie
quote:Insurgents have never fended themselves from conventional military forces?
Common armed citizens in the US wouldn't stand a chance against our own military forces.
I am neither history buff nor gun nut, but I can think of a few instances where the insurgents or citizenry fared pretty damn well.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 10:44 am to tigerfoot
People like Stevie's argument can be crushed simply by referring one to the "right of the people" and how many times it is said.
Look how many times "the right of the people" is mentioned throughout, not just in the 2A.
Steve: its a well regulated militia comprised of people with the right to bear arms, secondly please research the Heller case then try again.
Look how many times "the right of the people" is mentioned throughout, not just in the 2A.
Steve: its a well regulated militia comprised of people with the right to bear arms, secondly please research the Heller case then try again.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 11:05 am to weagle99
quote:
quote:
Common armed citizens in the US wouldn't stand a chance against our own military forces.
You are being very naive with this statement which makes me wonder about the entirety of your post to be honest.
Exactly. Libs love to toss this one out every chance they get.
In the meantime, a bunch of 10th century cave-dwellers have fought our technologically advanced military to a near stand-still with fairly primitive weapons.
LC
Posted on 6/29/14 at 3:41 pm to stewie
quote:
Again, what people is the amendment referring to? For what purpose? And are there limits? (in context to when it was written).
These one sentence laws were so precisely written for a reason. People means people. You can talk about blacks, women, natives, etc...but it should only serve to amaze you how incredible the ideas implemented in the constitution were (still are)
Progressives? The founders/framers were progressive. Centuries Ahead of their time.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 5:48 pm to MisterSenator
MCDONALD v. CHICAGO - Justice John Paul Stevens dissented. He disagreed that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against the states. He argued that owning a personal firearm was not a "liberty" interest protected by the Due Process Clause. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, also dissented. He argued that there is nothing in the Second Amendment's "text, history, or underlying rationale" that characterizes it as a "fundamental right" warranting incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment.
From Oyez.org
You do realize McDonald was a 5-4 decision in which the majority expressly stated it was (and Heller) a decision ruled closely to the facts and other cases may not fall in line with this precedent. You can hang your hat on these cases but they stand in soft ground.
As stated, well regulated militia throws a wrench into the argument that the right to bear arms is an unconstrained right for all people because it designed for a specific purpose...the need for a well regulated militia (which are mostly nonexistent among average citizens).
It's a legit argument that's gaining a lot of traction...especially with the technological advancements in firearms. It will be interesting to watch it continue to develop.
From Oyez.org
You do realize McDonald was a 5-4 decision in which the majority expressly stated it was (and Heller) a decision ruled closely to the facts and other cases may not fall in line with this precedent. You can hang your hat on these cases but they stand in soft ground.
As stated, well regulated militia throws a wrench into the argument that the right to bear arms is an unconstrained right for all people because it designed for a specific purpose...the need for a well regulated militia (which are mostly nonexistent among average citizens).
It's a legit argument that's gaining a lot of traction...especially with the technological advancements in firearms. It will be interesting to watch it continue to develop.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 5:52 pm to DelU249
quote:
These one sentence laws were so precisely written for a reason. People means people. You can talk about blacks, women, natives, etc...but it should only serve to amaze you how incredible the ideas implemented in the constitution were (still are)
People means people...you don't say?
You state that these amendments were precisely written yet ignore the first half of the amendment when it isn't convenient for your argument.
This post was edited on 6/29/14 at 6:13 pm
Posted on 6/29/14 at 6:01 pm to LongueCarabine
quote:
Common armed citizens in the US wouldn't stand a chance against our own military forces.
You are being very naive with this statement which makes me wonder about the entirety of your post to be honest.
I apologize for speaking in generalities but brought this up to evidence (and doing a poor job of it) how US citizens are not well regulated militias with any semblance of training.
That being said, I'm not saying anyone's wrong or right. There are a lot of valid points to the argument but I'm done...busy life.
This post was edited on 6/29/14 at 6:11 pm
Posted on 6/29/14 at 6:19 pm to stewie
You also realize we overcame the red coats with only three percent of colonists and they were everyday people like you (assumed) and I? They were only called to arms and began some training when the fight was inevitable...
Posted on 6/29/14 at 6:28 pm to stewie
I'm sorry you find the "first half" vague...it's not. It establishes reason for givin this right to the PEOPLE.
You expressed bewilderment, not me.
quote:
People means people...you don't say?
You expressed bewilderment, not me.
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News