Us Assault Weapon Ban **read First**

[Gideon35T]

You're failing English 101 here Burn-E. Formulate a grammatical breakdown of those sentences and you'll see what I mean.

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people..." - this is not an exclusionary preface.

After that, look at ALL the documentation used in the formulation of the Bill of Rights.

[Burn-E]

And you are making arguments that emanate directly from the PR playbook of the current NRA. The Supreme Court in multiple decisions refused to see it the way you are interpreting it. Are you saying they too failed Grammar 101? They recognized the historical context and applied it appropriately. It's only after Bush installed Roberts and Alito, both conservative activists on this measure, that this interpretation shifted.

John Paul Stevens who wrote the dissent asserted that Scalia and the majority were overreaching in their interpretation specifically because:

The Second Amendment’s structure was notable for its “omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense,” in contrast to the contemporaneous “Declarations of Rights” in Pennsylvania and Vermont that did explicitly protect those uses.

So if it was really about ownership for protection and hunting (which most Americans did) AND supporting a militia, why not specify such? Funny how that omission when called out completely changes the tenor of the conversation.

[Gideon35T]

Compare the grammatical structure to the other items contained within the Bill of Rights and you'll see a clear difference.

""why not specify such?" - Because it does already very clearly being non-exclusionary.

Such rights weren't arguable in preceeding times so a ruling wasn't needed before.

[Burn-E]

Actually, they were argued many times previous to Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago. See US v. Lopez in 1995 for example. But you can go back many cases over the last two centuries.That's why this overturn of precedence was such a big event in the world of Constitutional Law. They overturned 230 years worth of precedence which argued otherwise.

I don't know that it's even worth discussing this with you if you can't keep the simple facts straight.

[Gideon35T]

"The Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights added to the original Constitution in 1791, states: "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." In other words: since a militia, provided that it is well regulated, is a very good thing for a free state to have, the federal government must not be allowed to castrate it by forbidding the people of the United States to possess weapons. For then the militia would have no weapons, and an unarmed militia is an oxymoron."

- That states "by forbiding the people" NOT "by forbiding those previously mentioned militias" ...

The first note of the Supreme Court ruling states - " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53." - Because such actions were traditionally lawful.

Also, there's context - "(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32."

History - " (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47."

[Burn-E]

What exactly are you quoting? I can tell you that some of what you're stating was vastly better defined in the Majority Opinion as authored by Justice Scalia. Perhaps you ought to go read that and improve the support for your argument.

Because this:

for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53." - Because such actions were traditionally lawful.

Is what rhetoricians would call a casebook classic tautology.

Just because it was written in some textbook of dubious origin does not give validity to your statements. You're simply restating what you said before without substantiating it.

My point is that John Paul Stevens, who was as even measured a Justice as ever graced the halls of the Supreme Court, disagreed with the claims that Scalia et. al made in supporting their argument. And his argument is persuasive to anyone who isn't biased toward owning weapons but instead is willing to take a level headed look at what precedent is in place.

In his own words, Justice Stevens dissent to District of Columbia v. Heller states the following:

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) , provide a clear answer to that question.

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.1 Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “n 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 an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.

Since our decision in Miller, hundreds of judges have relied on the view of the Amendment we endorsed there;2 we ourselves affirmed it in 1980. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 , n. 8 (1980).3 No new evidence has surfaced since 1980 supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses.

The opinion the Court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons. Unable to point to any such evidence, the Court stakes its holding on a strained and unpersuasive reading of the Amendment’s text; significantly different provisions in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and in various 19th-century State Constitutions; postenactment commentary that was available to the Court when it decided Miller; and, ultimately, a feeble attempt to distinguish Miller that places more emphasis on the Court’s decisional process than on the reasoning in the opinion itself.

Even if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself, see Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600, 636 (1974) (Stewart, J., dissenting), would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law.4 As Justice Cardozo observed years ago, the “labor of judges would be increased almost to the breaking point if every past decision could be reopened in every case, and one could not lay one’s own course of bricks on the secure foundation of the courses laid by others who had gone before him.” The Nature of the Judicial Process 149 (1921).

You're flailing Gideon. Let me know when you need me to throw you a life buoy.

[Gideon35T]

What exactly are you quoting? I can tell you that some of what you're stating was vastly better defined in the Majority Opinion as authored by Justice Scalia. Perhaps you ought to go read that and improve the support for your argument.

Because this:

Is what rhetoricians would call a casebook classic tautology.

Just because it was written in some textbook of dubious origin does not give validity to your statements. You're simply restating what you said before without substantiating it.

My point is that John Paul Stevens, who was as even measured a Justice as ever graced the halls of the Supreme Court, disagreed with the claims that Scalia et. al made in supporting their argument. And his argument is persuasive to anyone who isn't biased toward owning weapons but instead is willing to take a level headed look at what precedent is in place.

In his own words, Justice Stevens dissent to District of Columbia v. Heller states the following:

You're flailing Gideon. Let me know when you need me to throw you a life buoy.

It's the Supreme Court ruling itself. I typically reference such ruling from the Cornell Law department if you're interested. "Dubious origins" indeed ... pft

You don't even know enough to know what the ruling stated yet you're somehow able to attack it ... sure ...

This is obviously assuming that we give weight to the Supreme Court. We could argue all day but in the end I think we both feel that they are politically driven and no longer adhere to their mandate.

[Burn-E]

Oh I recognized some text from the ruling within what you wrote. My point was the commentary around it was clearly not from the ruling but either your own or that of some other source.

And to merely state the ruling isn't very supportive of your argument. We all know how the 5 conservative Justices ruled in alignment with Scalia. The question is whether or not their logic in doing so held with the precedence of rulings and actions taken by those who came before. And it's clear that they didn't.

Just as an example:

As a threshold matter, it is worth pausing to note an oddity in the Court’s interpretation of “to keep and bear arms.” Unlike the Court of Appeals, the Court does not read that phrase to create a right to possess arms for “lawful, private purposes.” Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 382 (CADC 2007). Instead, the Court limits the Amendment’s protection to the right “to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Ante, at 19. No party or amicus urged this interpretation; the Court appears to have fashioned it out of whole cloth. But although this novel limitation lacks support in the text of the Amendment, the Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia.

Emphasis my own. Scalia fashioned this opinion out of whole cloth just like he did the specific argument.

And you and I do not agree that the court has shifted away from its mandate. Largely I believe they continue to operate as required with occasional hiccups.

[Gideon35T]

That viewpoint on the matter was used by the Supreme Court as the work-around for why the federal government has the ability to enact ANY legislation towards prohibition.

In other words, it was done the way it was done so that nobody could argue that the standing laws in regards to machine guns and such were invalid.

That is actually specifically outlines in the ruling. From the ruling (f) "...but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies...".

So, you do not feel that an institution designed to - "A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body." (Alexander Hamilton) isn't stepping outside of its bounds by imparting partisan politics ??? Judicial review is designed to be seperate from partisanship. Any crossover makes the ruling instantly invallid (though not by law as we know).

[Burn-E]

You appear to be operating under the illusion that we are suddenly more partisan than we were back in the days of the founding. How extensively have you read the journals and pamphlets that were published by the Framers themselves, under anonymous pen names no less, where they take partisanship to far greater lengths than we can even dream of today?

In the 1930s FDR tried to pack the court to satisfy his political desires. If Roberts' decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius demonstrates anything it's that the court remains a body of men and women who seek to follow their mandate. They may differ in their opinions and they may shift according to composition but they even each other out over time. You have to take the long view on these things.

[Gideon35T]

Social Security was innacted under political bs and approved by an altered Supreme Court wrongfully. After being repeatedly ruled unconstitutional. So, yes, I understand.

I'm not saying it's spontaniously messed up I'm saying that our use of it is INHERENTLY messed up.

[DVolvoguy850T5]

Click and read

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html

An other good read:

http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

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 second amendment Constitution of the United States of America)

Now here is a well studied site that you can get the correctly worded sayings from various politicians through out history.

http://www.quotations.com/gun_control.htm

I guess pictures could be posted of goings on in countries with strict gun control say Nigeria? Remember, Criminals will always prefer a person who can't defend them selves and say the growing government? The DHS is starting to resemble pre war 2 gestapo. A quick internet search will prove this.

Also remember the fool is a person whom learns not from history and is condemmed to repeat it.

An other good serise to watch is called "The World at War". Will also validate why we should all have fire arms to defend our selves.

Admiral Yamamoto: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Advising Japan's military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns. It has been theorized that this was a major contributing factor in Japan's decision not to land on North America early in the war when they had vastly superior military strength. This delay gave our industrial infrastructure time to gear up for the conflict and was decisive in our later victory.

The above said, is one of the many reasons the USA should be well armed. See below: (note this isn't the only link available on the net.)

http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/domestic-terrorism/terrorist-training-camps-in-the-us/660940716001/

Here is an other site that you can paruse:

http://www.cpusa.org/the-party/ < As Karl Marx states "The end justifys the means." (kinda goes along with Emmanual's famous quote "Never let a good crisis go to waste!")

Now a quote from me: "Those that would allow their guns to be taken deserve the out come of said decision." In other words, you get what you vote for and what you pay for.

[Burn-E]

Why rely on someone else's commentary when you go straight to the original arguments and conclude for yourself what exactly the Justice's meant? Source documents are what we're examining here. And quotes out of context (the Gun Control site) while interesting have no relevance because who knows what was being argued at the time and in what historical basis? They're pablum and weak.

We know how the majority ruled and how they supported their overreach. What Gideon and I have been debating is the original text of the majority findings and the minority dissent. Justice Stevens clearly makes the point that there is no supporting evidence for their shift from the views the court had long held. Yes they attempt to scratch up evidence of such but Stevens' extended opinion demonstrates the shaky ground of the majority's argument.

No one said anything about disarming people.

The question is what did the founders mean in those statements.

If the Japanese had invaded the US they would have learned the same problem Hitler and Napoleon had. Invading a massive land mass so far from their support infrastructure would have stretched their supply lines too thin.

[Commander Riker]

Come on guys... go back to bed. Everything is A-OK. Amiright?

[DVolvoguy850T5]

If the Japanese had invaded the US they would have learned the same problem Hitler and Napoleon had. Invading a massive land mass so far from their support infrastructure would have stretched their supply lines too thin.

Here's the deal. The constitution is not the bible and not up for debate. The founders meant what they said.

There was a time after this countries founding that you couldn't vote unless you where a citizen and owned property. But that changed and now look where it got us, a leftist president that would prefer to leach off the upper middle class and the rich folks and redistribute their wealth (is now 47% of the total US populus that doesn't pay a dime in FEDERAL income tax).

Now for your statement above, How can we relate that to the USA's "victory" in war 2? How can the US win a war in two theaters? Remember, Japan had most the eastern seaboard of Aisia controled as well as China (even though the Tigers where kicking their arse every chance they got) and where exploiting those resources. They had a vastly superior Navy before the US entered the war as well as the Germans, they had much of Europe in their control and exploiting those resources. We won because we had more common sense than Hitler or Yamamoto (through the emporer) . We also had generals that could care less about political correctness that got them in a world of trouble after the war. (Short of "Ike")

And now lets go for Justice Stevens. He was appointed by whom? Gerald R. Ford, whom I consider a seriously moderate Republican (RINO).

Can you point exactly where in the constitution that it says that the majority rule must coddle the minority? Maybe we can get Justice Kagens input? (member CPUSA)

Okay Mr Korruption, I've got to get my ducks in a row for work any way....