Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban

[WheelsRCool]

Just for those who may be unaware, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. What's interesting is it was 5-4 ruling.

[WarPhalange]

Who ruled what? Did the conservative ones overrule the liberal ones, or was it split half and half-ish?

[russ_watters]

Here's the decision: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a
dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.,
joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS,
SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. Not sure which way which leans.

I can't say I'm surprised about the comment on the 2nd amendment, and they did say that the right (like every right) is not absolute, but I was a little disappointed in where they drew the line. In any case, this is going to open the door to a flurry of new cases to determine exactly where they think the line should be drawn.

[Cyrus]

Living in the DC area, it will be interesting to see how crime changes. We already have high crime rates, so I dont think this is going to give the bad guys guns they dont ALREADY have.

But, when are they going to give us a damn VOTE? The DC plates say 'taxation without representation'.

[drankin]

This is a pretty huge decision for Americans. If you are a law-abiding (not a felon), mentally competent American you can now possess a handgun in your home anywhere in the US. It goes without saying IMO, but it needed to be ruled definatively by the Supreme Court. A very important "do not cross" line for gun control advocates has been drawn.

[quadraphonics]

Not sure which way which leans.

Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are reliable conservatives; their reliability on issues near and dear to the Republican party is what got them on the Court. Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens are reliably liberal (particularly the first two). Kennedy is the swing vote, and so is the one to watch in today's SCOTUS. The other eight you can almost always predict the votes of even before arguments begin.

[WheelsRCool]

During the next Presidential term, two seats should open up on the Supreme Court, so that adds to the importance of this election (McCain will likely appoint conservative justices, Obama liberal).

[chemisttree]

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

From Scalia's majority opinion. I heartily agree... it's NOT the role of the Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

[Ivan Seeking]

I am extremely happy about this and the ruling on the death penalty.

Never take my guns, and never give the State the legal right to kill its citizens, for any reason.

[WarPhalange]

I like how they completely ignored the first half of the sentence, though. You know, the whole militia part.

[Cyrus]

I like how they completely ignored the first half of the sentence, though. You know, the whole militia part.

Gimme a break here.

[WarPhalange]

http://www.nestle.ca/NR/rdonlyres/44323EE5-53D4-4D2A-92E4-05A4E89182AC/0/KK45g_May07.jpg

[drankin]

I like how they completely ignored the first half of the sentence, though. You know, the whole militia part.

That was not ignored AT ALL. Read the opening arguments, they go into it extensively. You should do some research before making such comments.

In order to be able to form a militia of citizens the citizens need to actually have guns and be familiar with there operation.

[WarPhalange]

Sure, but then they should actually have a militia. Ergo people who want to own guns should be required to sign up for the local militia.

[mheslep]

I am extremely happy about this and the ruling on the death penalty.

... and never give the State the legal right to kill its citizens, for any reason.Then put that in the constitution with an amendment because it is not in there now.

[drankin]

Sure, but then they should actually have a militia. Ergo people who want to own guns should be required to sign up for the local militia.

No they shouldn't. There is no such requirement in the Constitution. It's "shall not be infringed" not "shall not be infringed, after you sign up for the local militia".

[Cyrus]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM&feature=related

[D H]

The phrase well-regulated in the 2nd amendment does not mean "well-regulated by Congress". The framer's very begrudgingly gave Congress the ability to maintain a standing army. The 2nd amendment added a check on this ability. The framers wanted to give the people the means to rebel against the government they had just created. The 2nd amendment gives the people two rights: The right to bear arms and the right to use those arms against the government in a well-regulated (but private) militia. Even Scalia acknowledged that these might be outdated ideas. If you think that this amendment is outdated, fine. Change the Constitution.

[OrbitalPower]

The founders passed gun control regulations all the time. What the heck are you talking about? If you look at how the added amendments came about, you can see that the second amendment was a comprimise. Blacks for example could never even own guns, because they were not technically citizens.

This is just more of that kooky, conservative reaction to man's problems: that they have to be handled with violence.

Tyrannies overthrown with guns only lead to more tyrannies, and the idea that guns solve any problems is insane.

[OrbitalPower]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM&feature=related

lol. I watched their whole episode on gun control. They never quote the numerous historians out there that explain the context of the second amendment.

These are the same guys who claimed second hand smoke does no damage despite the thousands of pages of medical evidence to the contrary that has been around for years.

[WarPhalange]

Tyrannies overthrown with guns only lead to more tyrannies, and the idea that guns solve any problems is insane.

You would have a point if anybody ever did any overthrowing. People these days are content in simply having guns. Take away all their other rights, but let them have guns and they'll be happy. Happy enough not to ever use them, making the whole thing pointless.

EDIT: By the way, I'd like to see people rebel against tanks and jet fighters with their pea shooters.

[OrbitalPower]

This is a pretty huge decision for Americans. If you are a law-abiding (not a felon), mentally competent American you can now possess a handgun in your home anywhere in the US. It goes without saying IMO, but it needed to be ruled definatively by the Supreme Court. A very important "do not cross" line for gun control advocates has been drawn.

Another ahistorical opinion.

Courts go back and forth all the time, such as on the issue of free-speech. It has actually been through judicial decisions that we've gotten more free-speech, at times, there were less.

Guns are pretty easy to get already in most states, so it will be interesting to see how this does not solve any problems.

[OrbitalPower]

You would have a point if anybody ever did any overthrowing. People these days are content in simply having guns. Take away all their other rights, but let them have guns and they'll be happy. Happy enough not to ever use them, making the whole thing pointless.

EDIT: By the way, I'd like to see people rebel against tanks and jet fighters with their pea shooters.

Yes.

I live in a state of hunters. Most of these guys couldn't take over a local city council meeting, let alone destroy the US government. Knowing their accuracy, they'd probably shoot themselves before they shot anybody else.

This is just the thing though, gun nuts claim guns will check tyranny, but the gun nuts themselves are usually the ones that support the most tyranny, both at home and abroad.

[mheslep]

... If you think that this amendment is outdated, fine. Change the Constitution.Exactly. The last proposed amendment was thirty years ago in '78 (DC Voting - rejected). Even though society is larger and changing faster than ever before, the amendment process has been nearly forgotten , a consequence of jurists who hold a 'living document' philosophy.

[mheslep]

You would have a point if anybody ever did any overthrowing. People these days are content in simply having guns. Take away all their other rights, but let them have guns and they'll be happy. Happy enough not to ever use them, making the whole thing pointless.

EDIT: By the way, I'd like to see people rebel against tanks and jet fighters with their pea shooters.
Then go 'see' how the pea shooters did in the Hungarian Revolution 1956, for the VC in Vietnam, and in the Iraqi insurrection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hungarians_inspecting_a_tank.jpg

[mheslep]

...Tyrannies overthrown with guns only lead to more tyrannies, and the idea that guns solve any problems is insane.Quick, somebody get the straight jackets out to descendent's of the US Civil war, German and Japanese tyrants caused by WWII, etc.

[OrbitalPower]

Your history is confused. The Civil War was fought to keep the Union together. It's been proven numerous times. The conditions improved for many slaves but the economic conditions were also tyrannical.

World War II wasn't to "stop tyranny," either, and the countries that fought the Nazis, the allies, esp. the US and Russia, went on to kill millions of people in Indochina and in the case of Russia in their own country, obviously, far more than the Nazis killed.

[OrbitalPower]

Then go 'see' how the pea shooters did in the Hungarian Revolution 1956, for the VC in Vietnam, and in the Iraqi insurrection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hungarians_inspecting_a_tank.jpg

Gun nuts talk about rebellion against the government to stop a vicious tyranny. Those countries did not end tyranny at all.

Show a case where the citizens stood up to their government and tyranny reduced and thus democide reduced.

World War II is incorrect because democide actually increased. And the American revolution was really governments fighting. The people were never represented in the US, a majority, and actually had to be drafted into fighting as well.

[mheslep]

Your history is confused. The Civil War was fought to keep the Union together. It's been proven numerous times. I don't say otherwise, as the free / slave state issue plainly caused the disunion. It is clear that the civil war stopped the confederate tyranny of slavery and it was "overthrown with guns".

World War II wasn't to "stop tyranny," either,If that is true then the phrase means nothing and no war to 'stop tyranny' has ever taken place. You are temporizing.

[WarPhalange]

Then go 'see' how the pea shooters did in the Hungarian Revolution 1956, for the VC in Vietnam, and in the Iraqi insurrection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hungarians_inspecting_a_tank.jpg

Vietnam got firebombed and Iraq is a total crap hole. What's your point? That these people live in defiance, because they don't even have a roof over their head?

But hell, Jesse Ventura said it best: "Give me 9 snipers and I'll paralyze the nation"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7uJNjRkbAtg at 6:50

The point being that people with guns aren't willing to use them, meaning that they are completely pointless. These people touting guns as freedom are useless.

[Cyrus]

Bla bla bla, waa waa waa. Tax paying citizens have their right to own a gun, like anyone else in any other state.

[Cyrus]

Guns are pretty easy to get already in most states, so it will be interesting to see how this does not solve any problems.

The right to own a gun isnt to "solve any problems", you miss the point ENTIRELY.

[Cyrus]

Yes.

I live in a state of hunters. Most of these guys couldn't take over a local city council meeting, let alone destroy the US government. Knowing their accuracy, they'd probably shoot themselves before they shot anybody else.

This is just the thing though, gun nuts claim guns will check tyranny, but the gun nuts themselves are usually the ones that support the most tyranny, both at home and abroad.

You know, you sure do have a lot of opinions that have nada, zip, zilch, to do with the topic of this thread. What does the opinion of guns nuts supporting tyranny at home and abroad --whatever the hell that means, have to do with this discussion.

Instead of having any rational talk, you are just throwing nonsense after nonsense about things that have no relation.

Lets make this stupidly simple:

q: do the people of DC pay taxes like anyone else?
A: YES.

q: Do people in any other state have the RIGHTS of the constitution?
a: YES.

q: Do the TAX PAYING citizens of DC have these same rights as anyone else?
a: YES.

q: Does everyone else get to have guns
a: YES.

So, explain to me why the people of DC, normal TAX PAYING CITIZENS cant have guns? Do they get only partial rights under the US constitution?


You dont like guns, we all get that. Then you have to change the constitution for EVERYONE, not just states and the district here and there.

[Vanadium 50]

I like how they completely ignored the first half of the sentence, though. You know, the whole militia part.

How can you say this? Did you even read the decision? Out of ~157 pages, approximately 156 was devoted to the relationship between the first half of the sentence and the second.

Personally, I found the Breyer dissent most troubling - he argues that enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights are not absolute, and that the government is justified in regulating them into irrelevance if it serves a compelling state interest. I think that's a very slippery slope Mr. Justice Breyer is standing on.

[OrbitalPower]

You know, you sure do have a lot of opinions that have nada, zip, zilch, to do with the topic of this thread.

It does have to do with the thread. I was replying to people who made the statement that runs were a prerequisite to freedom.

It was in completely in context with the line of discussion in the thread.

What does the opinion of guns nuts supporting tyranny at home and abroad --whatever the hell that means, have to do with this discussion.

It clearly had to do with what I was replying to.

Instead of having any rational talk, you are just throwing nonsense after nonsense about things that have no relation.

It isn't "nonsense" -- I'm very wary of people who advocate guns as a prerequisite for freedom and then advocate absolute tyranny -- and it had everything to do with the comment I was replying to.



q: do the people of DC pay taxes like anyone else?
A: YES.

q: Do people in any other state have the RIGHTS of the constitution?
a: YES.

q: Do the TAX PAYING citizens of DC have these same rights as anyone else?
a: YES.

q: Does everyone else get to have guns
a: YES.

So, explain to me why the people of DC, normal TAX PAYING CITIZENS cant have guns? Do they get only partial rights under the US constitution?


I don't believe the constitution gives people the right to own guns. The founders themselves prohibited people from owning guns, and declared they had the "right" to take people's guns away from them in given scenarios (such as being "disaffected with the revolution"). So, you wouldn't have the change the constitution at all to have strict regulation.

I can give you the names of plenty of historians and legal scholars who've written on the context of the issue, noting the second amendment is not an individual right, and they know a lot more about the issue than Penn & Teller.

[drankin]

I don't believe the constitution gives people the right to own guns.

Hmmm. Apparently that belief wasn't backed by enough evidence to convince the highest court in the country. I think it's fair to say with credibility that you are technically wrong. And that is going to be the standing fact for many generations to come. But, if one doesn't like that fact there is always Canada right next door...

[OrbitalPower]

Actually, the court has ruled numerous times on this issue all under the clear interpretation that the Second Amendment does not give an individual the right to own guns, such as US v. Miller.

In recent years the court has underwent conservative "judicial packing" with people like "justice" Roberts and so on, so I regard what they say as irrelevant. The kind of people that would have upheld restrictions on anti-war speech during the two great wars.

Quite obviously, I don't base my beliefs on what Justice Roberts and sexual offenders like Clarence Thomas believe.

I'd take a real scholar any day of the weak.

[Cyrus]

It does have to do with the thread. I was replying to people who made the statement that guns were a prerequisite to freedom.

It was in completely in context with the line of discussion in the thread.



It clearly had to do with what I was replying to.

Really, local hunters from your state who cant take over city council does not really have anything to do with this topic. Its just anecdotal evidence on your part.


It isn't "nonsense" -- I'm very wary of people who advocate guns as a prerequisite for freedom and then advocate absolute tyranny -- and it had everything to do with the comment I was replying to.

Note, I was using the word nonsense not to get a warning for using a stronger word, which I wanted to use. The statement in bold has nothing to do with what were talking about.


I don't believe the constitution gives people the right to own guns. The founders themselves prohibited people from owning guns, and declared they had the "right" to take people's guns away from them in given scenarios (such as being "disaffected with the revolution"). So, you wouldn't have the change the constitution at all to have strict regulation.

What you believe is not what is true. Sorry, but people have had guns since the revolutionary war. Your trying to suddenly change the way things have been for hundres of years doesnt jive.

I can give you the names of plenty of historians and legal scholars who've written on the context of the issue, noting the second amendment is not an individual right, and they know a lot more about the issue than Penn & Teller.

I'd honestly like to see these opinions, because the US courts have said otherwise the entire time.

[D H]

It does have to do with the thread. I was replying to people who made the statement that runs were a prerequisite to freedom.
Nobody has said that. I, for one, gave up running several years ago. I blew out me knees one time too many.

Oh, you meant guns? It was the original framers of the Constitution who said that.

I don't believe the constitution gives people the right to own guns.
Believe what you want. You are, however, wrong. If you want to make that so, change the flippin' Constitution. The Constitution says how that can be done. And it isn't by having the courts decide that parts of the Constitution are outmoded. That is our job, not the courts'.

The founders themselves prohibited people from owning guns
The founders did not prohibit people from owning guns. They prohibited slaves, who were not people in the eyes of the founders, from having any rights. Guess what? We changed the Constitution to declare that all people are people.

So, you wouldn't have the change the constitution at all to have strict regulation.
Scalia said that some regulation is OK. It is the outright ban that is not.

I can give you the names of plenty of historians and legal scholars who've written on the context of the issue, noting the second amendment is not an individual right, and they know a lot more about the issue than Penn & Teller.
I can name five right off the top of my head who say it is an individual right, and those five trump any of the legal scholars you can come up with.

[drankin]

Actually, the court has ruled numerous times on this issue all under the clear interpretation that the Second Amendment does not give an individual the right to own guns, such as US v. Miller.

In recent years the court has underwent conservative "judicial packing" with people like "justice" Roberts and so on, so I regard what they say as irrelevant. The kind of people that would have upheld restrictions on anti-war speech during the two great wars.

So, if you don't like what the court decides it's irrelevant? It's very relevant, and will be relevant for a very long time. Can you site another case other than US v. Miller, regarding a sawed off shotgun being transported across state lines. A judgement that was imputed to a man and counsel that didn't even show up in court to contest their case? Talk about irrelevant.

[OrbitalPower]

I'd honestly like to see these opinions, because the US courts have said otherwise the entire time.

First of all, the courts have ruled up until now, in nearly every single decision, that the Second Amendment is NOT an individual right. Even here they say it is not an absolute right as I see it.

You don't know what you're talking about, although I guess they didn't cover that in the "Penn and Teller" program.

The absolutist view of the second amendment, that it protects an individual's right, has not been sustained a SINGLE TIME in US history, until now (and even here it is somewhat vague).

The court also decided in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller, that possession of a firearm is not protected by the Second Amendment unless there is "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."


Second, if the constitution did give people the right to own guns without restrictions, that is, if it says what you claim it says, the NRA could legally challenge every single gun law in the country, and people could own any gun they wanted to. They don't, because the precedent has generally been that it is not an absolute right and that is a right entirely tied up within the context of a militia.

Third, there are tons of scholars who note the context of the Second Amendment.

Some of them are Robert Spitzer, Joseph Story, Like Wills, Don Higginbotham, etc. etc.

Here is an expert from one of Spirzer's arguments:


Based on court rulings, historical interpretation, and the sense of those who drafted and debated the amendment, the meaning of the Second Amendment is clear. It provided for a citizen-based right to keep and bear arms when men were called into service in a government-regulated militia, keeping in mind that militias composed of self-armed men were the primary means of national defense in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
The national government formed under the Constitution of 1787 was granted sweeping new powers, including not only the power to create and maintain a standing army (a power denied to the national government under the old Articles of Confederation), but also the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militias. Antifederalists already suspicious of new federal powers were deeply concerned that states would no longer retain militia authority, and so they sought this reassurance in the Bill of Rights.

The militia-based understanding of the Second Amendment has been uniformly endorsed in Supreme Court cases stretching back to the nineteenth century (U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1876; Presser v. Illinois, 1886; Miller v. Texas, 1894; U.S. v. Miller, 1939;Lewis v. U.S., 1980). The age of some of these cases has prompted some critics to dismiss them, but court cases do not come with expiration dates. In addition, more than forty lower federal court cases, and law review articles published as early as 1874, all embrace this meaning.

In recent decades, efforts have been mounted to impose an individual meaning on the Second Amendment—that is, to assert that the amendment protects an individual right to own guns, aside and apart from militia service. The effort dates to a law journal article published in 1960. Since then, the individualist movement has won adherents, and in 2001 a federal court (Fifth Circuit) for the first time accepted this view in U.S. v. Emerson. This view has now been endorsed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, representing a reversal of decades of Justice Department interpretation. But even supporters of the individualist view generally concede that it permits reasonable gun regulations."

"All of the debate during the First Congress “applied only to men acting in a militia capacity,” including debate over whether the amendment should include wording to codify the right of conscientious objectors to opt out of militia service for religious reasons; the relationship between militias, standing armies, and liberty; the need to subordinate the military to civilian authority; and the unreliability of the militia as compared with a professional army. There was no debate about the amendment serving as a basis for individual gun ownership detached from military service...."

[OrbitalPower]

The founders did not prohibit people from owning guns. They prohibited slaves, who were not people in the eyes of the founders, from having any rights. Guess what? We changed the Constitution to declare that all people are people.

The militia was generally defined as any able-bodied male over a certain age.

Second of all, this is clearly incorrect. The founders even wrote bills like "the tory act" which declared all tories be disarmed. So, quite clearly they obviously believed some people should be disarmed. They also wrote that anybody "disaffected with the revolution," i.e., remained neutral during a time of revolution, could be disarmed.

So why, if they believed it was an absolute right, why would they disarm political dissidents? And by the many Indians as well as blacks would have been forbidden from owning guns.

The names of the scholars have been provided.

Show me the names of these "five scholars" that "automatically outweigh" anything else ever written by any other scholar.

[drankin]

The court also decided in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller, that possession of a firearm is not protected by the Second Amendment unless there is "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."


Uh, no, you are wrong. It was regarding a SAWED OFF SHOTGUN not being a useable, normal weapon for a militia. That was the case that didn't really have a fair decision because there was no DEFENSE to give an argument. A handgun WOULD be a useable weapon for a militia. The Miller case is a poor argument as Scalia pionted out.

[D H]

The founders even wrote bills like "the tory act" which declared all tories be disarmed.
Non sequiter. The Tory Act was passed by the Continental Congress in January 1776. The Bill of Rights was written in 1791.

Show me the names of these "five scholars" that "automatically outweigh" anything else ever written by any other scholar.
Scalia, Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas.

[OrbitalPower]

LOL. That's an even worse argument than I thought. I thought at least i'd get a gun cite article. The Supreme Court is the last place I'd go for an accurate interpretation on of the constitution, especially one that has been "judicially packed" by the likes of Reagan/Bush (a couple more know nothings on the constitution). These are the same peope who've upheld anti-free speech laws time and time again.

http://www.guninformation.org/secondamendment.html

But I'll explain the true origins of the second amendment tomorrow, as most people clearly don't know, and statements from one Hammilton that prove he knew it was NOT an individual right.

[drankin]

But I'll explain the true origins of the second amendment tomorrow, as most people clearly don't know, and statements from one Hammilton that prove he knew it was NOT an individual right.

okay, good luck

[D H]

LOL. The Supreme Court is the last place I'd go for an accurate interpretation on of the constitution
Talking about LOL!

[TheStatutoryApe]

But I'll explain the true origins of the second amendment tomorrow, as most people clearly don't know, and statements from one Hammilton that prove he knew it was NOT an individual right.

I hope you don't mind but I did not feel like quoting all of the various posts I am intending to respond to.

So far as I have seen no one in this thread has stated that the right to own guns is absolute and no one in the thread has claimed that the right to own guns is a 'prerequisite to freedom' (correct me if I'm wrong). This pretty much turns a large chunk of your arguements in this thread so far into strawmen. I think we could have a much better discussion and it may move forward if we could drop these misrepresentations.


Concerning the idea that the right to gun ownership was solely for the purpose of a 'well regulated militia' and not an individual right do you really believe that the men of those times had no thought for the ability of it's citizens to hunt to put food on thier tables? Or that perhaps the limitations of law enforcement may require a citizen to protect themselves? You can certainly argue whether or not these necessities apply today but can you honestly say that the right to individual ownership for these purposes was of no consideration in determining whether or not citizens had a right to own guns?

Now of course the actual wording is 'bear arms' so perhaps the drafters of the amendment were specifically refering to military grade weapons and took it for granted that citizens would own more basic guns for hunting and protection if need be. In this case the amendment really has nothing to do with gun ownership in general but only ownership of military grade weapons and the formation of armed militias, which could theoretically be a threat to the establishment and so a worrisome point that needed to be debated and clarified. But can it not be reinterpreted?

I don't think that the establishment clause was in the minds of the men who lived during a time when 'God' was invoked in government documents, in legally binding oathes, and the bible was common material in schools. Times change and so do our interpretations of the constitution.

So when weapons design improved, more deadly guns were more widely available, and fronteersmen were pushing the borders wasn't it necessary for citizens to have better guns to defend themselves with? Something not made for hunting? Eventually the US had a standing army and there was little to no need for the militias. No militias would mean no right to bear arms, no constitutional protection of the citizens' ability to bear arms. Unless we reinterpret the second amendment. Unless we interpret it to mean that the citizens themselves have the right to the ability to protect themselves with measures that would include the bearing of arms.

Do you not think that is a ligitimate way of interpreting it? Again we can debate whether or not this is an actual necessity today in which case, if it isn't, the constitution should be amended. But I'm focusing here on the legitimacy of this sort of interpretation as handed down by the current supreme court.

[D H]

The framers of the Constitution successfully ended arm uprising against an overly strong and overly centralized government 6 years before writing the Constitution. An interim overly weak and overly decentralized government had failed miserably. The framers very reluctantly gave the new stronger and centralized government the ability to raise a standing army. The framers fully realized that the might well have just created the very beast they had overcome 6 years earlier. It would have been hypocritical on the part of the framers to say that, while they had just held an armed uprising against a strong centralized government, we don't want anyone holding an armed uprising against this new strong centralized government. The framers were not hypocrites. They wanted to give the people the ability to hold an armed uprising against their newly created beast, and hence the Second Amendment.

The well-regulated militia the framers had in mind was not the Maryland National Guard. A militia tightly regulated by the government can hardly hold an armed uprising against the government, afterall. The well-regulated militia the framers had in mind is a group of citizens who have armed themselves, trained themselves, regulated themselves, and plotted against the wicked government all by themselves. In short, all of those gun nuts in Michigan and Idaho and elsewhere.

[drankin]

I hope you don't mind but I did not feel like quoting all of the various posts I am intending to respond to.

So far as I have seen no one in this thread has stated that the right to own guns is absolute and no one in the thread has claimed that the right to own guns is a 'prerequisite to freedom' (correct me if I'm wrong). This pretty much turns a large chunk of your arguements in this thread so far into strawmen. I think we could have a much better discussion and it may move forward if we could drop these misrepresentations.


Concerning the idea that the right to gun ownership was solely for the purpose of a 'well regulated militia' and not an individual right do you really believe that the men of those times had no thought for the ability of it's citizens to hunt to put food on thier tables? Or that perhaps the limitations of law enforcement may require a citizen to protect themselves? You can certainly argue whether or not these necessities apply today but can you honestly say that the right to individual ownership for these purposes was of no consideration in determining whether or not citizens had a right to own guns?

Now of course the actual wording is 'bear arms' so perhaps the drafters of the amendment were specifically refering to military grade weapons and took it for granted that citizens would own more basic guns for hunting and protection if need be. In this case the amendment really has nothing to do with gun ownership in general but only ownership of military grade weapons and the formation of armed militias, which could theoretically be a threat to the establishment and so a worrisome point that needed to be debated and clarified. But can it not be reinterpreted?

I don't think that the establishment clause was in the minds of the men who lived during a time when 'God' was invoked in government documents, in legally binding oathes, and the bible was common material in schools. Times change and so do our interpretations of the constitution.

So when weapons design improved, more deadly guns were more widely available, and fronteersmen were pushing the borders wasn't it necessary for citizens to have better guns to defend themselves with? Something not made for hunting? Eventually the US had a standing army and there was little to no need for the militias. No militias would mean no right to bear arms, no constitutional protection of the citizens' ability to bear arms. Unless we reinterpret the second amendment. Unless we interpret it to mean that the citizens themselves have the right to the ability to protect themselves with measures that would include the bearing of arms.

Do you not think that is a ligitimate way of interpreting it? Again we can debate whether or not this is an actual necessity today in which case, if it isn't, the constitution should be amended. But I'm focusing here on the legitimacy of this sort of interpretation as handed down by the current supreme court.

Basically, the court clarified that we had the right before the amendments and still have the right today. And, we also shall have the capacity to form a militia if so required to overthrow a tyrannical government.

And the argument that we couldn't hold up against tanks & jets (posted by WarPh) from our own government is actually bogus IMO. There aren't enough military resources to hold down the current gun owning populous, especially if emergency militias were formed. Not to mention all the state guard military resources that would most likely defect from an illegal federal tyranny. It can't happen. And the fact that we the general public are armed helps to insure that. I grew up with the military and know the folks and families that make up our forces. If our government were to attempt an obvious tyranny, the military would not necessarily go along. Every enlisted person has to speak this oath: http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm and a good percentage of those take it very seriously. The first sentence being to defend the Constitution.

It has always been an individual right and will continue to be well into our future. And that is a good thing.

[TheStatutoryApe]

The framers of the Constitution successfully ended arm uprising against an overly strong and overly centralized government 6 years before writing the Constitution. An interim overly weak and overly decentralized government had failed miserably. The framers very reluctantly gave the new stronger and centralized government the ability to raise a standing army. The framers fully realized that the might well have just created the very beast they had overcome 6 years earlier. It would have been hypocritical on the part of the framers to say that, while they had just held an armed uprising against a strong centralized government, we don't want anyone holding an armed uprising against this new strong centralized government. The framers were not hypocrites. They wanted to give the people the ability to hold an armed uprising against their newly created beast, and hence the Second Amendment.

The well-regulated militia the framers had in mind was not the Maryland National Guard. A militia tightly regulated by the government can hardly hold an armed uprising against the government, afterall. The well-regulated militia the framers had in mind is a group of citizens who have armed themselves, trained themselves, regulated themselves, and plotted against the wicked government all by themselves. In short, all of those gun nuts in Michigan and Idaho and elsewhere.

Yes and no, I think.
Since the militias were more or less the US military the amendment essentially decentralizes the country's military power by (theoretically) guaranteeing all citizens the right to bear arms and form militias. This way there is not a certain group of people with a monopoly on that power (again theoretically) and that power can not be leveraged against the people. So it is supposed to prevent the "beast" from being born in the first place. With a standing army in place this safeguard is effectively removed. So now one can make the arguement that it gives the people the ability to protect themselves from their government but, by my interpretation, it might be more accurate to consider a standing army to be a violation of this constitutional safeguard.

[TheStatutoryApe]

And the argument that we couldn't hold up against tanks & jets (posted by WarPh) from our own government is actually bogus IMO. There aren't enough military resources to hold down the current gun owning populous, especially if emergency militias were formed. Not to mention all the state guard military resources that would most likely defect from an illegal federal tyranny. It can't happen. And the fact that we the general public are armed helps to insure that. I grew up with the military and know the folks and families that make up our forces. If our government were to attempt an obvious tyranny, the military would not necessarily go along. Every enlisted person has to speak this oath: http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm and a good percentage of those take it very seriously. The first sentence being to defend the Constitution.
I agree. Though to me it's not so much about beating the military as it is at least having some sort of means to defend ourselves.

[D H]

by my interpretation, it might be more accurate to consider a standing army to be a violation of this constitutional safeguard.
The standing army is a part of the original Constitution. It even predates the Second Amendment. Something that is explicitly and clearly specified in the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional -- unless overturned by an amendment, that is. Slavery was explicitly and clearly sanctioned in the original Constitution, so it took a constitutional amendment to get rid of slavery.

[TheStatutoryApe]

The standing army is a part of the original Constitution. It even predates the Second Amendment. Something that is explicitly and clearly specified in the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional -- unless overturned by an amendment, that is. Slavery was explicitly and clearly sanctioned in the original Constitution, so it took a constitutional amendment to get rid of slavery.
Sorry I had thought that originally a standing army was supposed to be prohibited during time of peace. Apparently that was a condition that was suggested but didn't make it in.
The constitution makes congress responsible for maintaining a navy and raising of armies. With regard to the army it seems to state that in the event one is raised it is not to last for more than two years. Specifically...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Am I misinterpreting that? Or is there something else I am missing?

[cristo]

Show me the names of these "five scholars" that "automatically outweigh" anything else ever written by any other scholar.
Ouch.. you stepped into that one!

[D H]

The constitution makes congress responsible for maintaining a navy and raising of armies. With regard to the army it seems to state that in the event one is raised it is not to last for more than two years. Am I misinterpreting that? Or is there something else I am missing?
The framers were well-read, and one of the best sellers among the intellectual crowd at that time was "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. Smith recognized that a standing army was a sign of a technologically advanced nation. The framers had just fought a war against a technologically advanced nation and did not want to be at such a severe disadvantage the next time around. While the framers didn't quite like the idea of a professional standing army, they did see the value of one. What they truly despised was the idea of a professional standing army that was accountable only to the king (or President). The two year limitation in the Constitution does not limit a standing army to a two year term (that is not a standing army). It forces Congress to get directly involved in the army by holding the army's purse strings.

[TheStatutoryApe]

The framers were well-read, and one of the best sellers among the intellectual crowd at that time was "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. Smith recognized that a standing army was a sign of a technologically advanced nation. The framers had just fought a war against a technologically advanced nation and did not want to be at such a severe disadvantage the next time around. While the framers didn't quite like the idea of a professional standing army, they did see the value of one. What they truly despised was the idea of a professional standing army that was accountable only to the king (or President). The two year limitation in the Constitution does not limit a standing army to a two year term (that is not a standing army). It forces Congress to get directly involved in the army by holding the army's purse strings.

I'm assuming that the 2 year term is technically for the 'budget' which means it must be decided on, at least once every two years what to do with the army. From what I have been reading it looks like the framers were skeptical about keeping a standing army and this was a compromise. After the revolutionary war they almost disbanded the army but finally came up with a plan exceptable to everyone. Then they started to see the potential benefits when the militias were failing in their battles against the native americans.

[WheelsRCool]

The founders passed gun control regulations all the time. What the heck are you talking about? If you look at how the added amendments came about, you can see that the second amendment was a comprimise.

The Bill of Rights was to protect individual rights. It wouldn't have made sense to put a collective right smack in the middle of it. The Bill of Rights was added to be a check on the government and the Jeffersonian Democrats (Thomas Jefferson and so forth) would not even sign the Constitution without the Bill of rights being added.

This is just more of that kooky, conservative reaction to man's problems: that they have to be handled with violence.

That statement shows an incredibly high level of ignorance. "Conservatives" do not believe that everything must be solved with "violence;" one of the prime reasons "conservatives" and libertarians believe in the right of humans to own firearms is so people can protect themselves.

Gun control doesn't work. Period. All of the cities in America that have stringent gun control laws have the highest crime and murder rates. D.C. was one of the murder capitals of the nation. You need to remember economics. If you outlaw something, like liquor, drugs, guns, whatever, BLACK MARKETS form. As is the case with guns. Thus you end up disarming the citizens, whereas the criminals remain armed.

Perhaps you should take a look at Australia, who has just seen a surge in the number of crimes there now that the government has forced the citizens to turn in their firearms. Or Hurricane Katrina, when anarchy broke out and there were roving gangs going around, armed, and robbing people. It wasn't the police that brought this area back under control; it was law-abiding, gun-owning civilians. Or the Rodney King riots, in which case some of the only businesses that weren't burned were by ones owned by gun owners.

There is also the fact that Switzerland has a higher per capita gun ownership than the U.S., yet they have a far LOWER crime and homicide rate.

The majority of gun crimes occur in the big cities and come from illegally obtained handguns.

There was a guy who started shooting in a mall in Chicago recently, I believe. And of course the people there were innocent victims. When the same thing happened in Utah, someone pulled out their gun and shot the person.

Guns do not cause violence. People do. The right to own guns is to PREVENT violence from occuring. Sicne you cannot protect criminals from obtaining guns on the black market, people need to be able to protect themselves. And during times when society breaks down, like hurricanes, earthquakes, riots, whatever, the people need to be able to protect themselves.[/quote]

Tyrannies overthrown with guns only lead to more tyrannies, and the idea that guns solve any problems is insane.

Guns solve plenty of problems. They help supplement the police force in hard times.

And BTW, police protection is not a right. Look up the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales.

[cristo]

There is also the fact that Switzerland has a higher per capita gun ownership than the U.S., yet they have a far LOWER crime and homicide rate.

But the Swiss are a completely different people to the Americans. That is like saying domestic cats are harmless and thus so are lions!

I see a lot of "as fact" statements in your post. I'm afraid that, until you give some statistical evidence, all your points will remain as opinion.

[drankin]

But the Swiss are a completely different people to the Americans. That is like saying domestic cats are harmless and thus so are lions!

I see a lot of "as fact" statements in your post. I'm afraid that, until you give some statistical evidence, all your points will remain as opinion.

Until you can contest his opinion with facts, I find his opinion more convincing than yours.

[mheslep]

It does have to do with the thread. I was replying to people who made the statement that runs were a prerequisite to freedom.As of your post, no one in this thread has made such a claim.

[WheelsRCool]

Actually, the court has ruled numerous times on this issue all under the clear interpretation that the Second Amendment does not give an individual the right to own guns, such as US v. Miller.

The Court has never, ever ruled that gun ownership is not an individual right.

In recent years the court has underwent conservative "judicial packing" with people like "justice" Roberts and so on, so I regard what they say as irrelevant. The kind of people that would have upheld restrictions on anti-war speech during the two great wars.

Actually, during World War I, it was the Progressives, the pre-cursors of today's "liberals," who were the most pro-war and nationalistic and staunchly against any protesting. Woodrow Wilson was a bigger fascist than Mussolini when you observe what he did. Read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg.

Quite obviously, I don't base my beliefs on what Justice Roberts and sexual offenders like Clarence Thomas believe.

That was just a smear job conducted to try and ruin his reputation.

I'd take a real scholar any day of the weak.

Many legal scholars, including some prominent liberals I believe, have come out acknowledging that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

The court also decided in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller, that possession of a firearm is not protected by the Second Amendment unless there is "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

Poor argument, because by that decision, all handguns, machine guns, assault rifles, etc...which are necesary for a militia, should be perfectly legal.

And the Founding Fathers were very supportive of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right:

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson

It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

"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

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

[mheslep]

High gun ownership in Switzerland is a commonly known and measurable fact, as all able Swiss males are required to perform military service, and each such individual keeps his army-issued personal weapon (the Sig 550 5.56x45 mm assault rifle for enlisted personnel, the SIG 510 battle rifle and/or the SIG-Sauer P220 9 mm semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), which is sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use takes place.[2]-wiki
In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles stored at private homes, mostly SIG 550 types. Additionally, there are some 320,000 assault rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million.[6] - based on http://www.ssn.ethz.ch/info_dienst/medien/nzz/documents/2004/07/20040718Zivilewaffen.pdf

However, your statement:
But the Swiss are a completely different people to the Americans.
is not.
So given your next statement:
I'm afraid that, until you give some statistical evidence, all your points will remain as opinion.I ask you to do the same regards your domestic cat and Lion.

[drankin]

The Court has never, ever ruled that gun ownership is not an individual right.



Actually, during World War I, it was the Progressives, the pre-cursors of today's "liberals," who were the most pro-war and nationalistic and staunchly against any protesting. Woodrow Wilson was a bigger fascist than Mussolini when you observe what he did. Read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg.



That was just a smear job conducted to try and ruin his reputation.



Many legal scholars, including some prominent liberals I believe, have come out acknowledging that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.



Poor argument, because by that decision, all handguns, machine guns, assault rifles, etc...which are necesary for a militia, should be perfectly legal.

And the Founding Fathers were very supportive of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right:

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson

It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

"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

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

Wow! I wasn't aware of most of those quotes. I think you nailed the context of the 2nd Amendment.

[cristo]

Until you can contest his opinion with facts, I find his opinion more convincing than yours.

Firstly, of course you are going to agree with an opinion that echoes your own :rolleyes:. Secondly, one should not have to counter opinion, since this will just escalate into an "I'm right, you're wrong" type argument. As per the P&WA guidelines (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181), citations of sources must be made for all factual comments.

High gun ownership in Switzerland is a commonly known and measurable fact
I don't disagree with that.


However, your statement:is not. So given your next statement:
I ask you to do the same regards your domestic cat and Lion.
Is it not quite obvious that those comments were meant to be light hearted?

I should point out that I am not interested in entering into this debate again, and that there have been a plethora of such threads in the past. Unless there is something new to be said on this topic, then I don't see it having much of a lifetime.

[drankin]

Firstly, of course you are going to agree with an opinion that echoes your own :rolleyes:. Secondly, one should not have to counter opinion, since this will just escalate into an "I'm right, you're wrong" type argument. As per the P&WA guidelines (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181), citations of sources must be made for all factual comments.


I don't disagree with that.


Is it not quite obvious that those comments were meant to be light hearted?

I should point out that I am not interested in entering into this debate again, and that there have been a plethora of such threads in the past. Unless there is something new to be said on this topic, then I don't see it having much of a lifetime.

Nothing new. I agree, any debate is a rehash of old stuff. Other than the Supreme Court confirming what most Americans already assumed was an individual right, the rest is simply personal opinion.

One of the most important things that distinguishes the US from just about every country on the planet is our right of the law abiding citizen to be armed.

[WheelsRCool]

Quoting myself here, just to add a bit:

Gun control doesn't work. Period. All of the cities in America that have stringent gun control laws have the highest crime and murder rates. D.C. was one of the murder capitals of the nation. You need to remember economics. If you outlaw something, like liquor, drugs, guns, whatever, BLACK MARKETS form. As is the case with guns. Thus you end up disarming the citizens, whereas the criminals remain armed.

Well black markets are just a fact of life. If you look at the old Soviet union, one of the reasons it was able to survive as long as it did was because the entire economy got converted into one big black market.

Then there's the issue of these "gun-free" zones. If all that is needed to ban guns is to hang a "No guns permitted" sign out, then why does the White House have all that security? Why not just give them batons and hang a few "NO GUNS ALLOWED" signs up? :D

The politicians obviously don't trust the "no gun" laws to stop people from having guns, so they make sure they are surrounded by security and themselves armed (Senators can carry guns in areas that are outlawed for normal citizens).

Perhaps you should take a look at Australia, who has just seen a surge in the number of crimes there now that the government has forced the citizens to turn in their firearms.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/NationalPost61504.html

Or Hurricane Katrina, when anarchy broke out and there were roving gangs going around, armed, and robbing people. It wasn't the police that brought this area back under control; it was law-abiding, gun-owning civilians. Or the Rodney King riots, in which case some of the only businesses that weren't burned were by ones owned by gun owners.

http://www.gunowners.org/no02.htm

There is also the fact that Switzerland has a higher per capita gun ownership than the U.S., yet they have a far LOWER crime and homicide rate.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

The majority of gun crimes occur in the big cities and come from illegally obtained handguns.

When crime was reduced significantly in New York City, it accounted for a large portion of the total crime rate in the nation I believe, this coming from what was written in Freakonomics.

There was a guy who started shooting in a mall in Chicago recently, I believe. And of course the people there were innocent victims. When the same thing happened in Utah, someone pulled out their gun and shot the person.

The Chicago shooting was a recent news story, I believe the Utah shooting I am thinking of is written about in John R. Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime

[chemisttree]

Actually, the court has ruled numerous times on this issue all under the clear interpretation that the Second Amendment does not give an individual the right to own guns, such as US v. Miller.

Can you name one? Did Scalia miss one???

Held
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.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation 2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(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.
(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.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Even the Miller opinion that you refer to was decided in error. That opinion ruled,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 an instrument.
The justices did not know that such weapons indeed had a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" since weapons of the identical type were in use at the time by the US Army. Had they known this, the opinion would have undoubtedly reflected it.

[OrbitalPower]

The Bill of Rights was to protect individual rights. It wouldn't have made sense to put a collective right smack in the middle of it. The Bill of Rights was added to be a check on the government and the Jeffersonian Democrats (Thomas Jefferson and so forth) would not even sign the Constitution without the Bill of rights being added.

The Bill of Rights was designed to tell the government what it could not do, as the constitution was a means of prescribing how the government would work, and what it would do. The Anti-Federalists you are talking about were worried about some parts in the Constitution. In the case of the Second Amendment, the offending part was the "Militia Clause," which states that Congress can call up the militia in order to suppress insurrection and rebellions. And they actually ordered the suppression of rebellions a few times as well. (So it's interesting for gun owners to say we need guns in fight government oppression like what "the founders would have wanted").

This makes perfect sense as a militia interpretation of the constitution, and that is why, in Federalist #46, Madison says said that militias are simply a "military force" that are conducted by "state governments."

That is also why, as Spitzer notes, the founders talked about the Second Amendment "applied only to men acting in a militia capacity." That is also why Samuel Adams said that the militia is to be regulated by civil power, and so on. What matters is the context in which they were speaking and the constitutional debates.

That statement shows an incredibly high level of ignorance…
Gun control doesn't work. Period. All of the cities in America that have stringent gun control laws have the highest crime and murder rates. D.C. was one of the murder capitals of the nation. You need to remember economics. If you outlaw something, like liquor, drugs, guns, whatever, BLACK MARKETS form. As is the case with guns. Thus you end up disarming the citizens, whereas the criminals remain armed.

This is a false analogy. It’s easy to get guns in the US, and the statistics show that a majority of the guns used in crimes have changed hands at least once in their life, meaning that they were originally purchased legally. That comparison is fallacious because it’s easy enough to go to another state and sneak in a gun if it’s illegal for you to get one in your own state, which it usually isn’t.

In the United States, it is far easier to get guns than in any other industrialized country, and in the US we have more guns per capita than the in all of the other industrialized countries I believe, and yet we have a gun homicide level per 100,000 that is simply off the charts.

There is also the fact that Switzerland has a higher per capita gun ownership than the U.S., yet they have a far LOWER crime and homicide rate.

Switzerland has the second highest handgun homicide rate out of all industrialized countries as well. But this is another one of your "false analogies": in Switzerland, the people who own guns are highly trained by the military.

I know people who live in Switzerland, and they've told me that, usually, every Swiss citizen is required to accomplish their military duty by 19, for a duration of four months. As a gift, every soldier is required to keep the weapon they receive in the Army.

Americans are not forced to serve in the army, and thus, are completely untrained in the use of firearms. That's probably why some statistics show that it's actually more dangerous to have a gun in some places, than to not have one (as you're 20 times more likely to shoot yourself or have your kids get into them, than to use them to prevent a robbery in the first place).

So there is no comparison between the two countries, and Switzerland has a lot of gun control and restrictions on what people can own as well, anyway.

It's more accurate to compare it to a country where people are not forced into the military, voluntary enlistment, and here we see that in those cases the United States has the greatest gun homocide rate of any industrialized country out there.

[OrbitalPower]

The Court has never, ever ruled that gun ownership is not an individual right.

The courts have ruled the Second Amendment is not an individual right several times:
"Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm."
-United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 1971
http://www.saf.org/journal/4_mis.html

The right to bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution" or by the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court says restricts the power of Congress--but not the states--to regulate firearms.

--U.S. v. Cruikshank-1876,

The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art I, Sec 8, cl 15, 16, of the Constitution.

--Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41

The [Second] amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress, and not upon that of the States.
--Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252

It is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this amendment contemporaneous with its proposal and those of learned writers since that this amendment, unlike those providing for free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power.

--Tot v. United States, 131 F. 261
Under the controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment.
—Quilici v. Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261

[I]t is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the Federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts.
--Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535.

It must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution.
-- Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610

A fundamental right to keep and bear arms has not been the law for 100 years...Cases have analyzed the second amendment purely in terms of protecting state militias rather than individual rights.
—United States v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318

The courts have consistently held that the second amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear "a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia."
—U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548

In short, the Second Amendment does not imply any general constitutional right for individuals to bear arms and form private armies.

--Vietnamese Fishermen's Association v. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, 543 F. Supp. 198

It is not sufficient to prove that the *weapon* in question was susceptible to military use. It is evident that Hale's weapons were of a military nature and possessed the capability of killing and maiming groups of persons. Rather, the claimant of Second Amendment protection must prove that his or her *possession* of the weapon was reasonably related to a well regulated militia.

--United States v. Wilbur Hale, 978 F.2d 1016.

An individual has no private right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
--United States v. Pencak, 872 F. Supp. 410

This court is unaware of a single case which has upheld a right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the Constitution, outside of the context of a militia.
--Thompson v. Dereta, 549 F. Supp. 297

"(the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia");

--Adams v. Williams (1972);

Many legal scholars, including some prominent liberals I believe, have come out acknowledging that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

Such as? You only provide links to charlatans like John Lock and other quacks, as well as a host of non-scholars on the issue and a link to NewsMax.

Poor argument, because by that decision, all handguns, machine guns, assault rifles, etc...which are necesary for a militia, should be perfectly legal.

And the Founding Fathers were very supportive of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right:

The founding fathers did no such thing. Most of those quotes are not from the Constitutional debates and are thus meaningless. The founding fathers differed on many things, were almost never in unison on any given issue, and many may have changed their minds. And some of those quotes don't even seem real in the first place.

For example, it's easy to state the founding fathers supported the separation of religion and government, and yet, it's well known they cited from the Bible, had prayer meetings, etc. in public buildings. So what is the true interpretation there?

Second, many of the founders explicitly stated that they were talking about in the context of militias during the debates, such as the Madison and Adams quote above. Hamilton also made it clear, and was openly for gun control:

"THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia...."

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security."


http://www.constitution.org/js/js_322.htm

[OrbitalPower]

Actually, during World War I, it was the Progressives, the pre-cursors of today's "liberals," who were the most pro-war and nationalistic and staunchly against any protesting. Woodrow Wilson was a bigger fascist than Mussolini when you observe what he did. Read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg.

This is so ludicrous it's almost unfathomable anybody would utter it. There is comparison between Wilson and Mussolini.

First of all, Mussolini invented Fascism. He was the very definition of fascism; he defined it, and if you go over his society step by step, you see that he was not in any way a liberal democrat.

Wilson was not the most "pro-war" president in US history. He himself originally had reservations about getting into World War I. And while it is true he passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts that imprisoned pacifists, socialists, and isolationists, he did not brutalize them like Mussolini did.

Wilson ended up imprisoning many Socialists during the time, this is well known, as there was a lot of Socialist opposition. Mussolini, on the other hand, directly ordered his black shirted thugs to go around and murder the opposition.

For example, the brilliant socialist Matteotti, who stood up in the Italian Chamber of Deputies to denounce the establishment of dictatorship, was visited by Mussolini's goons one morning and shot to death. This happened to pretty much anybody who "stepped out of line," whereas, in America under Wilson, certain anti-war speech was deemed as aiding an abetting an enemy. So, it wasn't as arbitrary as Mussolini's action.

That's the difference between Fascism and a liberal democracy like America. For all its faults, America was nowhere near a Fascist dictatorship in World War I. And it's generally conservatives who claim anti-war speech is "anti-American" even to this day.

Second, Wilson was fighting for Democracy. In International Relations, which I've studied, they call it "Collective Security." Wilson didn't want to go to war unless [b]all other options had failed[/i], and, of course, something like World War I was far more debatable than Iraq.

What Wilson tried to do was establish the League of Nations. This was understood to be a good idea as it was known that Europe had practically killed itself off by continued warfare. War was continual, in any place in Europe it was likely occurring in some form or another. Of course, his plan failed, but it was in a way a predecessor to the UN and there has been a fair amount of stability in Europe, and America, since the establishment of it. So, it was not a failed idea.

This is in complete contrast to the unilateralism (like what Bush seems to believe in), of Mussolini, who invaded Ethopia and so on for the most dubious of reason.

Lawerence Britt and other political scientists have outlined fascism, and it's generally extreme/militant nationalism, control and/or manipulation of the media by the government and corporation, the continued collusion of government and business, and so on. This is far more Reagan/Bush/Coolidge than Wilson or FDR, who actually weakened corporate power.

[OrbitalPower]

Wow! I wasn't aware of most of those quotes. I think you nailed the context of the 2nd Amendment.

That's funny, because I've provided documentation that shows the founders seem to have wanted to limit the power of the militia.

In any case, some of those quotes seem dubious. For example:

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

I've read the Federalist Papers as a young interested student, including Hamilton's portions (some of the most brilliant, imo), and I don't remember anything like that in there.

There are different versions of them published, so a page number alone is meaningless.

And what the hell does "184-8" mean? Did Hamilton use five pages to write that quote down or something?

Either he believed in the right of people to be properly armed so much he took five pages to write that quote, making the letters extraneously big, or that quote is a misquote. I'd like to see the real reference to this one, and what the heck is going on here, cause that probably should be flagged as another quote some gun advocate has made up.

An online text of the Federalist Papers with that in there should suffice.

[OrbitalPower]

Can you name one? Did Scalia miss one???


http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Even the Miller opinion that you refer to was decided in error. That opinion ruled,
The justices did not know that such weapons indeed had a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" since weapons of the identical type were in use at the time by the US Army. Had they known this, the opinion would have undoubtedly reflected it.

"The Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest piece of fraud, I repeat the word, 'fraud', on the American public. The distortion of the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights by the gun lobby is glaring, as they focus their argument on the last half of the amendment, while ignoring the first half, on which it was based". --Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger

And if you look at the Miller ruling, they interpreted the Second Amendment from a "well-regulated" militia standpoint. That is what I'm arguing, that it is to be interpreted under that framework. So, gun laws aren't unconstitutional.

We can play the quote game and history's mysteries all day here, or even fabricate quotes while citing charlatans like Goldberg to prove our points. In reality, applying modern context to the founders is actually quite ludicrous.

Or we can rationally argue about it, and it is not irrational to think the founders interpreted it to mean in the context of a militia, when so many judges and even some of their own statements (which are real ones, not made up ones) indicate this. I agree, though, that there many have been many anti-federalists who interpreted it as an individual right.

In response to the rather rational post of TheStatutoryApe, I agree there might be some middle ground between the collective right interpretation and the absolutist or individual right interpretation (if that's what he's saying).

Unfortunately, with all that's gone on I don't have time to completely reply to his post, but the problem is that we've basically tried that, with an emphasis being on the individual right, and yet gun homocide figures are still deplorable.

And the argument that we couldn't hold up against tanks & jets (posted by WarPh) from our own government is actually bogus IMO. There aren't enough military resources to hold down the current gun owning populous, especially if emergency militias were formed.

First of all, under what context would you support armed insurrection, which the founders actually quelled a few times?

Second, you forget that half the country are conservatives, with a libertarian element to them (the modern right-wing version, not the classical, socialist version of libertarianism, what I call true libertarianism), that seem to believe the problem of society is that Wal-Mart doesn't have the freedom it needs, and abortions. On the other hand, you have liberals, who seem to believe the corporations have too much control and the government has done to much for them.

It's split about 50-50, the country is very divided. So, likely you'd have a large counter-rebellion against an attempted libertarian/confederate/fascist takeover, as well as a communist or anarchist take over (the extremes of right and left, respectively).

Third, I don't agree that the government couldn't easily smash a revolution. This happens far more often than revolutions are successful, historically.

[Ivan Seeking]

Third, I don't agree that the government couldn't easily smash a revolution. This happens far more often than revolutions are successful, historically.

I once believed that the usefulness of an armed citizenry against oppressive governments was no longer applicable. And then I remembered that a bunch of hash-smoking amateurs kicked the Russians out of Afghanistan. We're not doing very well over there either.

[ray b]

militia as body of citizens armed to defend the nation or some part there of

SO how does that square with the assault gun or full automatic gun bans

any invading army WILL have modern guns
as will any government troops we need to rebel againts

SO should a modern militia be equipped with full auto guns, tanks, AAA ect
or they are in a no win lost cause if the other side has all that and more

hand guns would have a very limited role in any militia
most of the now banned, restricted , assault guns or full automatic guns
would be far more use to a real militia esp if it is to have any hope of winning

[WheelsRCool]

I will address the other parts when I have some more time, I will respond to this for now:

This is so ludicrous it's almost unfathomable anybody would utter it. There is comparison between Wilson and Mussolini.

First of all, Mussolini invented Fascism. He was the very definition of fascism; he defined it, and if you go over his society step by step, you see that he was not in any way a liberal democrat.

He "officially" invented fascism, but the philosophical elements of fascism were around long before Mussolini gained power. And yes, fascism shares many things with liberal democrats.

Wilson was not the most "pro-war" president in US history. He himself originally had reservations about getting into World War I. And while it is true he passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts that imprisoned pacifists, socialists, and isolationists, he did not brutalize them like Mussolini did.

You are correct in that he was, to the dismay of many Progressives at the time, deemed "too soft" regarding the war.

That's the difference between Fascism and a liberal democracy like America. For all its faults, America was nowhere near a Fascist dictatorship in World War I. And it's generally conservatives who claim anti-war speech is "anti-American" even to this day.

No it isn't. For one, fascism is an incredibly difficult to define subject. The only thing that can really be said about it is that it is anti-free market capitalism, individual rights, and so forth. Many scholars have for years considered fascism a variant of socialism, but now some are beginning to wonder if socialism is really a variant of fascism.

Second, Wilson was fighting for Democracy. In International Relations, which I've studied, they call it "Collective Security." Wilson didn't want to go to war unless [b]all other options had failed[/i], and, of course, something like World War I was far more debatable than Iraq.

No, he wasn't. Woodrow Wilson wrote many hostile things towards the ideas of individual liberties and the Constitution in his various writings. He was no friend of liberty. He believed that the government expansion of government power was a natural thing, and that the entire idea of democracy was a tired old, 19th century ideology. Most of the Progressives did. They believed the power of the State was how best to organize and shape society. One of the only ways to get such power is through a war, or the moral equivalent of war. With war, you can nationalize the economy, regulate prices and wages, and control people a lot more. Historically, the American Left seems to seek the equivalent of war, for example the extreme environmentalists saying we need to face global warming with the same tenacity we faced World War II.

What Wilson tried to do was establish the League of Nations. This was understood to be a good idea as it was known that Europe had practically killed itself off by continued warfare. War was continual, in any place in Europe it was likely occurring in some form or another. Of course, his plan failed, but it was in a way a predecessor to the UN and there has been a fair amount of stability in Europe, and America, since the establishment of it. So, it was not a failed idea.

The United Nations is a joke. The only reason why the Europeans have not warred with each other since then is because they don't have much military power and they were also united for much time against the Soviet Union. The League of Nations was a dangerous proposition that would have sacrificed America's national sovereignty. And I doubt the UN has much influence at all on America itself in terms of stability here between the various sections of the country.

This is in complete contrast to the unilateralism (like what Bush seems to believe in), of Mussolini, who invaded Ethopia and so on for the most dubious of reason.

Lawerence Britt and other political scientists have outlined fascism, and it's generally extreme/militant nationalism, control and/or manipulation of the media by the government and corporation, the continued collusion of government and business, and so on. This is far more Reagan/Bush/Coolidge than Wilson or FDR, who actually weakened corporate power.

Completely wrong. Fascism is not at all militaristic. Militarism and nationalism are but one aspect of certain fascist groups. During World War I, it was the Progressives who were the most militaristic and nationalistic for example. And I agree that the Progressives were one form of fascists, but nationalism and miltiarism are not what make fascism.

And you are also confusing patriotism with nationalism. Nationalism and patriotism are two separate things.

Regarding the collusion between business and the government, you are talking about the symptoms of the disease, not the disease itself. Collusion between business and government does not occur from libertarian/"Reagan conservative" policies. It can't. Embracing free-market capitalism and free-trade always has prevented it.

On the other hand, Leftwing/Democrat policies do result in such collusions, through the creation of big governmetn regulatory agencies and high taxes that allow big corporatiosn to develop artificial monopolies and small businesses get squashed. This is what happened in Mussolini's Italy. This is what happened in Nazi Germany. And it is what happened in much of America until Reagan finally came and put a stop to it.

To give you an example, look at the electronics and computer industry. There is constant, cutthroat competition. Monopolies are very, very difficult to form, for the most part. On the other hand, look at the drug industry. The drug industry is stringently regulated by the FDA. As such, the FDA and the drug industry protect each other, and the drug industry is controlled by a few very large and powerful corporations. To start a drug company to compete with those companies in America is very difficult, as you must have the capital and knowledge to develop the drug, then it must go through about ten to fifteen years of FDA testing. This makes potential competitors very few.

There is a reason why airlines lobby regulators for tougher regulation; it's to prevent small airlines from starting up and threatening their business (as Richard Branson did with the British airline).

There's a reason Wal-Mart supports a higher minimum wage.

It is the big government, regulatory policies of the Left that cause the collusion of business and government, not the pro-free enterprise, pro free-trade policies of the true Right or Libertarians.

And there are certain Big Government Republicans out there who violate this and are just as guilty as the Democrats and Leftists.

Remember, there is a big difference between being "pro-free enterprise" and "pro-business." Being pro-business can mean being anti-free enterprise, and being pro-free enterprise can mean being anti business.

It is because of Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher in England, that the unions lost a lot of their stranglehold over the economy, and Big Business and Wall Street were made a lot mroe accountable.

Reagan's de-regulation of the financial markets killed the monopoly that the Wall Street priviledged elite had had for years. Now, Wall Street is available to anyone willing to work hard. His de-regulation of the telecommunications industry, de-regulation of the trucking industry and airlines (which came before him), all opened up these industries to competition and thus improved them all a great deal.

The financial revolution that resulted from Reagan's policies are what also made companies end up getting restructed a lot and more debt-ladden, which made the corporate executives a lot more accountable to the shareholders.

The banks no longer could sit on their butts and relax, as they now had to compete. We have since seen the more explosive creation of wealth in the history of this country since the Reagan years. He was in no way, shape, or form, fascist. Both he, and Margaret Thatcher, moved America and the UK away from becoming more and more fascistic.

Fascism is, to define it very simply, when politicians try to create a "balance" between business and government. They did not like the laissez-faire capitalism and they did not like the pure socialism. This is the very platform the German National Socialist party ran on. And the people fell for it, because on paper it sounds good. In practice, it gives you the same result as pure socialism.

Bureaucracy is bureacracy. You can have the State directly own everything, or you can allow "capitalism," but regulate prices, wages, quotas, and all that heavily, which kills off small businesses, ruins the economy, and puts a bunch of corporate monopolies and oligopolies in charge of the economy, thus giving the same overall result as pure socialism.

That is the core definition of fascism. When politicians today talk about "the free-market, regulated in the public interest," or "balancing corporations and state," that's headed straight towards fascism.

And it is for these reasons why the Democratic party (and certain parts of the Republican party) tends to fascistic. They have wanted to nationalize healthcare. They want to nationalize the oil companies now even (both of which would give the government a LOT more power; one of the main checks on the pwoer of the U.S. government for many years was that it did not own the oil industry, as the U.S. oil industry uised to control the world price of oil for the most part).

But the modern Democratic party, despite its fascistic tendencies, are not warmongers. They DO, however, want the "moral equivalent" of war, which they have found in global warming. They see it as the perfect excuse to bring tremendous more State power over our lives. One look at California is all one needs to see that (Cali recently tried to enact legislation to control people's thermostats).

True conservatives are opposed to any large-scale war unless absolutely necessary, because they know that such a war means an expansion of the power of the State, as happened in World War I and World War II.

Going back to the European fascists, the Nazis and Mussolini's Fascista were very much in favor of a high minimum wage, price controls, strict regulation of Big Business, universal healthcare, love of the environment, high taxes/wealth confiscation, guaranteed jobs, gun control, abortion, pensions for the elderly, etc...there was nothing Bush/Reagan about them whatsoever.

The whole idea that the Republican party is "neo-fascist" is one of the greatest historical twists in existence. It comes about likely because of Republicans being known as the party that represents the "white establishment" (hilarious in that the Republican party was originally created to free the black slaves, and the KKK was originally the terrorist arm of the Democratic party), Republicans tend to be patriotic, which the Left confuse with nationalism, and Republicans tend to be religious Christians who do not like homosexuals (as the Nazis hated them).

But these are wrong comparisons, because Republicans, ones who actually adhere to the true Republican values and aren't elitists (which you find on both sides of the political isle), are not at all racist or prejudiced. They are not nationalistic, and only the really kooky ones want to outlaw homosexuality (these ones are usually religious believers to a level of cultishness).

Regarding FDR, FDR did not weaken corporate power by any means. First of all, FDR had his administration directly copy the policies of the German National Socialist Party (Nazis). He almost succeeded in giving himself equal powers comparable to what Hitler and Mussolini each had over their own economies. His National Industrial Recovery Act passed through both houses of Congress, but got shot down by the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, he persisted with his National Industrial Recovery Administration, which used policies copied from the German Nazi party, the Italian Fascists, and the Japanese fascists. His two books were given lavish praise by the German Nazi press and both Hitler and Mussolini wrote praisingly of FDR.

Woodrow Wilson similarly brought business right into bed with government, to nationalize industry for World War I.

[WheelsRCool]

We can play the quote game and history's mysteries all day here, or even fabricate quotes while citing charlatans like Goldberg to prove our points. In reality, applying modern context to the founders is actually quite ludicrous.

Not at all. And Goldberg is no "charlatan." You should read him, or read some of the classical texts on economics and economic history.

Unfortunately, with all that's gone on I don't have time to completely reply to his post, but the problem is that we've basically tried that, with an emphasis being on the individual right, and yet gun homocide figures are still deplorable.

If you can figure out a way to stop people from illegally obtaining guns, I might agree with you somewhat in that. Gun homicides in America are deplorable a good degree because of our population in comparison to European nations, and our inner-city problems. Otherwise, there are very few cases of gun homicides in the huge swath of America between the East and West coast.

The fact that gun homicides in Switzerland are lower than what they are in America, but they have a higher per capita of gun ownership, also contributes to this.

Second, you forget that half the country are conservatives, with a libertarian element to them (the modern right-wing version, not the classical, socialist version of libertarianism, what I call true libertarianism)

The "modern, right-wing" version of Libertarianism is based on the concepts of the classical liberal, essentially the social liberalism of the Left and the classical economics of the Right. There is no such thing as a socialist Libertarian. Socialism is ardently against the concept of human and individual freedom, which is one of the core components for the Libertarians.

Socialism and fascism were considered the wave of the future in the early 20th century. Only those right-wing, idiotic, pesky conservatives were still stuck in the 19th century with their tired-old concepts of individual liberties, free-markets and capitalism, and so forth. With the Great Depression, most thought capitalism was coming due to its long-awaited demise.

[chemisttree]

And if you look at the Miller ruling, they interpreted the Second Amendment from a "well-regulated" militia standpoint. That is what I'm arguing, that it is to be interpreted under that framework. So, gun laws aren't unconstitutional.

The Miller ruling isn't the best case to cite since Miller fled during the proceedings and his lawyers didn't even present a case. The Federal Government's case was based on the militia interpretation and thus the Court ruled in relation to that interpretation. The Court did not examine the nature of individual rights in depth and actually ruled that the weapon in that case was not useful to a militia when in fact it was being used by the US Army at the time. Thus, their finding was in error. Not the best case to base an argument upon.

Certainly gun laws aren't unconstitutional... just the ones that prevent an individual from owning a handgun or regulating it's storage in a manner to render it ineffective.

Or we can rationally argue about it, and it is not irrational to think the founders interpreted it to mean in the context of a militia, when so many judges and even some of their own statements (which are real ones, not made up ones) indicate this. I agree, though, that there many have been many anti-federalists who interpreted it as an individual right.

The founders definition of militia included all males of a particular age. The right was conveyed as "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." rather than the right of members of the state militias.

My original comment was directed at the statement, "...the court has ruled numerous times on this issue..." I interpreted that to mean the Supreme Court rather than the 'courts' as you undoubtedly meant (judging from your recent posts).

[Ivan Seeking]

I have a question for opponents of private gun owership: How are you going to guarantee my safety? There is no way to eliminate guns and other weapons, which means that criminals will have weapons. This conclusion is unavoidable.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I have a right to life. The State cannot guarantee my safety against, intruders, and events that might otherwise threaten my safety - events like riots - therefore I have a right to protect my life. And this right supercedes even the Bill of Rights. As by our own Delclaration of Independence, it is right that is self-evident.

[quadraphonics]

I have a question for opponents of private gun owership: How are you going to guarantee my safety? There is no way to eliminate guns and other weapons, which means that criminals will have weapons. This conclusion is unavoidable.

I am not an opponent of private gun ownership, but you may have heard of such organizations as the police, courts, prisons, FBI, DEA, ATF, Coast Guard, National Guard, Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines? And that's without listing private security outfits... At no point in my life have I ever felt the slightest need to purchase a gun for self-defence, nor has anyone I know (with the exception of a couple of criminals). Maybe I've been fortunate to live in uncommonly safe areas, but this whole line of thought just seems beside the point. The wild west days are long gone.

[WheelsRCool]

I meant to state, "The Supreme Court." I am sure lower courts have had different rulings here and there. But the Supreme Court has always upheld the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.

The courts have ruled the Second Amendment is not an individual right several times:
"Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm."
-United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 1971
http://www.saf.org/journal/4_mis.html

Not a Supreme Court case/ruling.

The right to bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution" or by the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court says restricts the power of Congress--but not the states--to regulate firearms.

--U.S. v. Cruikshank-1876,

A Supreme Court case yes, but you quoted it completely out of context. Here is the actual quote in its entirety:

U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), “This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed.”

The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art I, Sec 8, cl 15, 16, of the Constitution.

--Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41

Not a Supreme Court case/ruling.

The [Second] amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress, and not upon that of the States.
--Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252

Yes, the Supreme Court here ruled that the Second Amendment is only a limitation on the Federal government and commented no further on it. But it did not state anything against the Second Amendment as an individual right:

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government."

It is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this amendment contemporaneous with its proposal and those of learned writers since that this amendment, unlike those providing for free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power.

--Tot v. United States, 131 F. 261

Not a Supreme Court case/ruling.

Under the controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment.
—Quilici v. Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261

Not a Supreme Court case, and Miller is one of the most mis-cited court cases.

[I]t is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the Federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts.
--Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535.

Franklin Miller was convicted of murder, on appeal, claimed his Second and Fourth Amendment rights had been violated under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court, upholding the conviction, reaffirmed Cruikshank v. U.S. and stated: "And if the fourteenth amendment limited the power of the states as to such rights, as pertaining to citizens of the United States, we think it was fatal to this claim that it was not set up in the trial court."

It must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution.
-- Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610

Not a Supreme Court case/ruling.

A fundamental right to keep and bear arms has not been the law for 100 years...Cases have analyzed the second amendment purely in terms of protecting state militias rather than individual rights.
—United States v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318

Not a Supreme Court case/ruling.

The courts have consistently held that the second amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear "a reasonable relationship to a