The Constitution wins!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by DZ/015, Mar 10, 2007.

  1. DZ/015 macrumors 6502a

    DZ/015

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Location:
    New England
    #1
  2. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #2
    A illiteracy strikes again. What the hell do gun toters think that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," means?
     
  3. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #3
    Interpreted as written? Hmm.

    Watch this one go to the Supreme Court. Not now, though. Too many neocons on the bench.

    Might be a victory for gun proponents, but by definition all of their victories are pyrrhic.
     
  4. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #4
    if you read the article it said that the it is explaining the main reason for the second part which says
    and if you are just going to use half of it why not use that half?
     
  5. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #5
    The Supreme Court has ruled on the Second Amendment only once, in the 1939 Miller case. Both opponents and proponents of gun control like to point at that case, because the Court ruled (attempting to read the amendment in its entirety) that the Constitution both protects arms ownership, but also authorizes state regulation of same. Note that one of the (very conservative) Appeals Court judges in this case essentially endorsed that view, and voted with the 2-1 majority because he thought that Washington's regulations went too far, making gun ownership virtually impossible. So this case apparently, even assuming it stands up on appeal, does little more than test the limits of what kind of gun control regulations governments may pass. Outright prohibitions probably go too far. I suspect that concept surprises few.

    I'm going to predict that if the entire Appeals Court upholds the decision that gun control advocates will not appeal it to the Supreme Court. Gun control opponents would dearly love to have this be a central issue in the 2008 election.
     
  6. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #6
    Why on earth would you only use half of a sentence to convey it's meaning?

    ex:

    "Not counting every other president who has served, George W. Bush is the greatest president ever."

    Yay!! GW is the greatest ever!!!
     
  7. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #7
    Can the militia as written in the Constitution ever really be effective again. Wasn't the idea that the militia can over throw a government if it over stepped its bounds?
     
  8. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #8
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    Yep. I can't think of any government that deserves to be overthrown more.
     
  10. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #10
    As far as the intent of the Second Amendment, remember that it's but a part of the Bill of Rights. The Preamble to the BOR states the purpose: "...in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers...", referring to the central government. The BOR is a complete package of restraints upon the State and thus cannot at the same time be restraints upon the citizenry.

    "Can the militia as written in the Constitution ever really be effective again. Wasn't the idea that the militia can over throw a government if it over stepped its bounds?"

    Certainly. Per Congress' definition, the militia is all able-bodied males between (roughly) 16 to 45 years of age. That includes many millions of voters. You don't even need the guns of the roughly 140 million people who own one.

    The totality of badge toters and military shooters is what, maybe three hundred thousand? Those poor folks wouldn't have a chance. If the public at large got mad enough, governments at all levels would be changed within a short period of time.

    But, the ballot box is stronger than the cartridge box--which, IMO, is as it should be.

    'Rat
     
  11. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #11
    Wouldn't that count as a Civil War if the citizens decide not to follow the government. What is the militias actual role, are they supposed to keep the peace or are they the ones that lead the charge.
     
  12. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #12
    The concept of militias is antique and inimical to modern democracy. Need proof? As Exhibit A, I offer Iraq. I don't think anyone wants to see heavily armed bands of paramilitary soldiers roaming the streets of the United States, beholden to nobody by themselves -- but if you're a strict originalist, then that's pretty much the way you have to think it needs to be. The Supreme Court is going to have their hands full if they ever take this case.
     
  13. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #13
    So technically if you read how The Bill Of Rights was written a lot of the gun laws on the books now would be illegal.
     
  14. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    I suppose you directed that question at me.

    The short answer is no. Strict originalists would say that, but they are members of a kind of judicial cult, who dance to music that hardly anybody else hears. Sadly, at least two and possibly three of our Supreme Court justices are members. I think they in particular are going to be faced with a very tough choice if this case comes their way.
     
  15. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #15
    I think this explains how the militia stands today.
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    Just don't forget: We have an AG who's view of Habeus Corpus is that because it doesn't explicitly guarantee you Habeus, (it only spells out when it can be suspended), you don't have an actual right to it.

    That kind of logic, if accepted as legal precedent, would allow any future AG to say that because the 2nd Amendment only says you can't have you right to keep and bear arms "infringed" upon, that doesn't mean you have an actual right to the arms.

    It's twisted, but it sets a dangerous precedent.
     
  17. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #17
    The militia as written into the constitution is now considered to be they National Guard. So unless the guard is going to overthrow itself the militia that is supposed to keep the government in check is run by the government.

    So if the Guard is supposed to protect the homeland how can it be fighting over seas?
     
  18. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #18
    So if the militia system in place in 1791 no longer exists, then how are we to interpret the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms" today? Strict originalists seem to want to simply scratch out the inconvenient language about "well regulated militias" and hang their hats entirely on the last phrase, using whatever grammatical and logical jujitsu is required to get there. This reasoning doesn't work for me, and when it comes down to fish-or-cut-bait time, I don't think it's really going to work for them either. These judges may not live entirely in the same world as you or I, but I suspect they still aren't going to want to see men in the streets toting AK-47s and bandoliers of hand grenades on their way to the country club. I expect they're going to find a way to reconcile "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed," because to assume the supremacy of the latter over the former is simple madness.
     
  19. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #19
    It seems to be working just fine for Switzerland.
     
  20. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #20
    Let's hear it for the Swiss. The Swiss "militia" is actually the nation's organized standing army, in which every male citizen must serve.

    Meanwhile, back on the subject...
     
  21. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #21
    Trying to say by outlawing guns you can stop people from killing is idiot, criminals dont pay attention to laws so all you do is disarm the law abiding citizen. Plus people kill, inanimate objects dont and guns dont just go off. These things needed to be said Along with this.... Do we even have a national guard? I thought they were all fighting in Iraq. Another silly gunlaw that does nothing but empowers the beauracrat and the police state. Im glad it was shot down and it should be. Start holding people accountable.
     
  22. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #22
    If we outlaw all dangerous weapons what's next, sticks, rocks, forks. Anything can be used as a deadly weapon. To say that we would all be safer without guns is asinine. Lets get the dangerous people of the streets and not worry about what the law abiding person has in his own house.
     
  23. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #23
    This is a classic slippery-slope argument. The problem with slippery-slope arguments is that they can also be argued the other way round. Should any "law abiding citizen" be able to own rocket propelled grenade launchers? Surface-to-air missiles? Hydrogen bombs? Reductum ad absurdum results in only one kind conclusion: absurd. Notice how they get us no closer to either a practical solution or a functional interpretation of the Constitution.
     
  24. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #24
    No, what is asinine is ignoring the overwhelming evidence that nations that outlaw the use of handguns have a far lower per capita homicide rate.
     
  25. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #25
    Again the guns are outthere so who is going to obey the law? the criminal or the law abiding citizen. I put my money on the citizen so what have you acomplished? Oh you have disarmed the good guy. Terrific but thats the beauracrat thinking. Plus now you created a larger police state. Here is a better idea. Prosecute the heck out of gun toting criminals and make them accountable for their actions.
     

Share This Page