That's totally bullshit, if they did

gut;1431530 wrote:The idea of the 2nd amendment was that a militia - not a state-sponsored army - would protect us from tyranny, foreign or domestic.

That's your opinion.

FatHobbit;1431543 wrote:That's your opinion.

(sorry for the Wikipedia quote):
"..the Continental Army was quickly given land certificates and disbanded in a reflection of the republican distrust of standing armies. State militias became the new nation's sole ground army"

And I think the 2nd Amendment reads pretty clearly that the right to bear arms is for the purpose of supporting the militia (which would be regulated). I don't see where, especially given the context above, one infers an intention that individuals arm themselves as a defense against tyranny.

I don't disagree it should evolve and that people have the right to own a gun to protect their home. But I do think the purpose and intent of the 2nd Amendment has been hijacked.

gut;1431550 wrote:(sorry for the Wikipedia quote):
"..the Continental Army was quickly given land certificates and disbanded in a reflection of the republican distrust of standing armies. State militias became the new nation's sole ground army"

And I think the 2nd Amendment reads pretty clearly that the right to bear arms is for the purpose of supporting the militia (which would be regulated). I don't see where, especially given the context above, one infers an intention that individuals arm themselves as a defense against tyranny.

I don't disagree it should evolve and that people have the right to own a gun to protect their home. But I do think the purpose and intent of the 2nd Amendment has been hijacked.

I think this is mostly right...the part about "government tyranny" is all about militias. Well regulated militias provide supposedly provide security against the tyrant/tyranny (although I'm not sure that'd be the case anymore with modern military weaponry in the hands of a ruthless tyrant).

The individual right to bear arms that the Supreme Court has endorsed recently is really all about protection from coercion from other private citizens...not protection from government tyranny. And, this should just seem obvious because it should seem pretty clear that indidivuals hiding in their basement alone with an AR-15 while the tyrant patrols House to House is not going to secure a free state from the tyrant.

Countries that seek to deter nuclear powers don't put an AK-47 in the hands of all their citizens...they build nuclear weapons.

lhslep134;1427616 wrote:Watching the MLB network and Vernon Wells just said something pretty insightful: obviously it's a tragedy what happened there but I think it shed light on what a lot of other countries go through on a daily basis.

Just wanted to share.

And the majority of these countries that "go through ths on a daily basis" is the very reason why the new Boston massacre happened. Islamic jihadists don't kill American women and children because the Qur'an tells them to, they kill American women and children because we have been killing their women and children for decades. Until we GTFO of their countries, we will continue to bury our dead...after these horrific events.

Breaking News...bombings may have been motivated by religion:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BOSTON_MARATHON_EXPLOSIONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-04-22-18-59-49

Who knew?

Guess we need to get out of Chechnya and stop killing their children right Footie? :rolleyes:

Breaking News...bombings may have been motivated by religion:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BOSTON_MARATHON_EXPLOSIONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-04-22-18-59-49

Who knew?

Problem is the MSM is still angry that religious motivation wasn't from domestic white right-wing Christian Tea Party males.

Hey Footie...Guess we need to get out of Chechnya and stop killing their children right? :rolleyes:

gut;1431550 wrote:(sorry for the Wikipedia quote):
"..the Continental Army was quickly given land certificates and disbanded in a reflection of the republican distrust of standing armies. State militias became the new nation's sole ground army"

And I think the 2nd Amendment reads pretty clearly that the right to bear arms is for the purpose of supporting the militia (which would be regulated). I don't see where, especially given the context above, one infers an intention that individuals arm themselves as a defense against tyranny.

I don't disagree it should evolve and that people have the right to own a gun to protect their home. But I do think the purpose and intent of the 2nd Amendment has been hijacked.

So it's your opinion.

I understand there are differing opinions.

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

The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

FatHobbit;1431932 wrote:So it's your opinion.

I understand there are differing opinions.

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

The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Even if you accept the existence of an individual right to bear arms free and apart from a well-regulated militia, do you disagree that the justification for that individual is as protection against other private citizens....i.e. When the Cop is 20 minutes away and the Burglar is invading your property; Naturalized Citizen Terrorist is running lose in the neighborhood and is armed and dangerous?

Individuals with small arms are impotent against a tyrant and always were.

BoatShoes;1431935 wrote:Even if you accept the existence of an individual right to bear arms free and apart from a well-regulated militia, do you disagree that the justification for that individual is as protection against other private citizens....i.e. When the Cop is 20 minutes away and the Burglar is invading your property; Naturalized Citizen Terrorist is running lose in the neighborhood and is armed and dangerous?

Individuals with small arms are impotent against a tyrant and always were.

I agree that a tyrant with nuclear weapons he/she is willing to use can easily defeat someone with small arms when they know where to find them.

But throughout history people have stood up to tryanny when they were outgunned. (not always succesfully but they have done it)

The Heller decision is quite clear that the right to bear arms is individual and that individuals may choose to arm themselves for whatever legal purpose they see fit.

queencitybuckeye;1431959 wrote:The Heller decision is quite clear that the right to bear arms is individual and that individuals may choose to arm themselves for whatever legal purpose they see fit.

Agreed. I don't think the reason really matters anymore.

queencitybuckeye;1431959 wrote:The Heller decision is quite clear that the right to bear arms is individual and that individuals may choose to arm themselves for whatever legal purpose they see fit.

First of all, that is not the holding from the Heller decision. The case says you have and individual right to bear arms for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense in the home...That is a distinction which genuine difference than any lawful purpose.


And anyway, the "Need a Gun to Defend Against the Tyrant" argument really imagines a scenario wherein the individual thinks they would be justifiably acting outside the bounds of the law...

But even given that you may at least own some guns in your home for a traditional legal purpose under Heller, it is also true that the individual right to bear arms may be regulated in accord with due process clause jurisprudence as the Court even suggested. As Scalia has suggested, you might not have a right to rocket launchers despite being possible a hand-held type of small arms...it's up for debate.

So, when policy makers seek to regulate that right in pursuit of the public interest...as they do with all fundamental rights (i.e. see the Hot Pursuit Exception to Search and Seizure and the Public Safety exception to Miranda being discussed with regard to the Boston Bombings)...it's worthwhile to evaluate historical and relevant justifications for having a private firearm.

Should we ask, "Well, we shouldn't prohibit the private ownership of rocket launchers because individual's might rightfully use it to shoot down an Apache when and if Barack Obama initiates his tyrannical usurpation." or "Will private citizens still be able to adequatly defend themselves from criminals and terrorists when government fails them if we make it illegal for them to own rocket launchers?"

BoatShoes;1431991 wrote:First of all, that is not the holding from the Heller decision. The case says you have and individual right to bear arms for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense in the home...That is a distinction which genuine difference than any lawful purpose.

No, it's a distinction without a difference. As usual, your alligator mouth is writing checks that your hummingbird intellect can't cash. You're wrong and instead of just admitting it, you parse words.

BoatShoes;1431991 wrote:And anyway, the "Need a Gun to Defend Against the Tyrant" argument really imagines a scenario wherein the individual thinks they would be justifiably acting outside the bounds of the law...

Would you use the same argument for the first ammendment? We can't defeat a Tyrant with words so we might as well give up our right to free speech.

BoatShoes;1431991 wrote:First of all, that is not the holding from the Heller decision. The case says you have and individual right to bear arms for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense in the home...That is a distinction which genuine difference than any lawful purpose.

It's not really a distinction, especially not a genuine one, when it is the legislature that determines the lawfulness of the purpose of gun ownership (ie banning rocket launchers and not rifles).

That opinion merely implies that the legislature cannot infringe on already established traditional (in the legal sense) lawful purposes but is free to draft law notwithstanding.

queencitybuckeye;1431996 wrote:No, it's a distinction without a difference. As usual, your alligator mouth is writing checks that your hummingbird intellect can't cash. You're wrong and instead of just admitting it, you parse words.

Why did Scalia write the exact words that I wrote "traditionally lawful purposes such as defense within the home" and not use the language that you used? Scalia, a textualist, is capable of choosing his words carefully and for specific reason is he not?

In the introduction he goes on to say this:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogue

It is expounded upon within the text of the opinion.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

In the footnote he writes this:

We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive

So, if an individual had a right to carry a firearm for any lawful purpose and not just traditionally lawful purposes under Heller, it would a violation of the 2nd Amendment for a state to bar a man from carrying a gun in his pocket while he walks down the street minding his own affairs...but the court explicitly does not go this far noting that a majority of 19th century courts have traditionally held such prohibitions to be valid. In fact, the Court specifically denied a Writ for a case concerning concealed weapons about a week ago.

I appreciate the insults but I think you're probably just miffed that you thought it was "any lawful purpose" when it clearly is not and it does make a difference. FWIW I've never heard of a hummingbird intellect before...perhaps a reflection on my hummingbird intellect, eh???:thumbup:

FatHobbit;1432007 wrote:Would you use the same argument for the first ammendment? We can't defeat a Tyrant with words so we might as well give up our right to free speech.

Well I wouldn't argue that a primary justification for the right to free speech is for protection against government tyranny. Free speech provides all kinds of other utility that warrants its protection.

BoatShoes;1432014 wrote:
"any lawful purpose" when it clearly is not and it does make a difference.

It is any lawful purpose. You said so yourself by quoting Scalia's passage "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" The lawfulness is determined by the states. In Arizona it is lawful to walk around with a holstered gun without it being concealed if you have a permit to do so. I've seen it. But that conduct would clearly would be illegal in most other states.

So yes, it is any lawful purpose, but it is up to the states to determine what it lawful, what isn't, and then face any subsequent challenge to their legislation.

Your attempt at disproving QCB fails, sorry.


Also to pre-empt your "what about being banned in schools, owned by mentally ill, etc." counterargument--those are examples of the legislature crafting definitions of when it isn't lawful to own/carry a gun, furthering QCB's point.

lhslep134;1432008 wrote:It's not really a distinction, especially not a genuine one, when it is the legislature that determines the lawfulness of the purpose of gun ownership (ie banning rocket launchers and not rifles).

That opinion merely implies that the legislature cannot infringe on already established traditional (in the legal sense) lawful purposes but is free to draft law notwithstanding.

Well this is incorrect when in the very case the Supreme Court, interpreting the Constitution as the ultimate law of the land, determined that many state leglislatures violate the constitution when trying to determine the lawful purpose of gun ownership. The Court itself determined the lawful purpose of gun ownership to be established traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In fact the Court stepped and prevents state legislatures and the District of Columbia from limiting lawful purposes of gun ownership...


And, you write this:

That opinion merely implies that the legislature cannot infringe on already established traditional (in the legal sense) lawful purposes but is free to draft law notwithstanding.

Suppose a Kink Shop in Vegas opens a service where they offer to penetrate women with loaded guns. It's a private contract between a business and a woman minding their own affairs. The City specifically grants permission saying it is lawful and grant him a business license. The state intervenes and passes a statute saying that "Loaded Gun Female Penetration Kink Shops" are prohibited. The Shop owner sues under Heller saying he was acting with the blessing of the City within a lawful purpose. Does the state statute get thrown out under Heller because he was using his right to bear arms for some lawful purpose out of any possible lawful purposes??? Not a chance, it'd have to be a new holding expanding on Heller because of its explicit appeal to traditional lawful purposes.

It could even be less extreme...a city allows concealed carry...a state takes away his carry. State's have traditionally prohibited concealed carry...does he get his concealed carry back of the state thrown out because he was acting lawfully pursuant to a city ordinance? Not under Heller...it'd have to be new law and the Court didn't want to go there yet.

It makes a difference.

BoatShoes;1432030 wrote: Does the state statute get thrown out under Heller because he was using his right to bear arms for some lawful purpose out of any possible lawful purposes??? Not a chance, it'd have to be a new holding expanding on Heller because of its explicit appeal to traditional lawful purposes.

It could even be less extreme...a city allows concealed carry...a state takes away his carry. State's have traditionally prohibited concealed carry...does he get his concealed carry back of the state thrown out because he was acting lawfully pursuant to a city ordinance? Not under Heller...it'd have to be new law and the Court didn't want to go there yet.

It makes a difference.

No it doesn't make a difference because of state law pre-emption.

Keep trying, keep failing.

lhslep134;1432021 wrote:It is any lawful purpose. You said so yourself by quoting Scalia's passage "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" The lawfulness is determined by the states. In Arizona it is lawful to walk around with a holstered gun without it being concealed if you have a permit to do so. I've seen it. But that conduct would clearly would be illegal in most other states.

So yes, it is any lawful purpose, but it is up to the states to determine what it lawful, what isn't, and then face any subsequent challenge to their legislation.

Your attempt at disproving QCB fails, sorry.


Also to pre-empt your "what about being banned in schools, owned by mentally ill, etc." counterargument--those are examples of the legislature crafting definitions of when it isn't lawful to own/carry a gun, furthering QCB's point.

I understand what you're saying...but don't you see? the Supreme Court took away the power for state's to determine what a lawful purpose is! State's and municipalities are not free to determine what a lawful purpose for gun ownership is....they must allow their citizens to keep and bear arms for traditionally lawful purposes!

"Suppose a Kink Shop in Vegas opens a service where they offer to penetrate women with loaded guns. It's a private contract between a business and a woman minding their own affairs. The City specifically grants permission saying it is lawful and grant him a business license. The state intervenes and passes a statute saying that "Loaded Gun Female Penetration Kink Shops" are prohibited. The Shop owner sues under Hellersaying he was acting with the blessing of the City within a lawful purpose. Does the state statute get thrown out under Heller because he was using his right to bear arms for some lawful purpose out of any possible lawful purposes??? Not a chance, it'd have to be a new holding expanding on Heller because of its explicit appeal to traditional lawful purposes."


Insert the word "gun" with any other device. You still aren't refuting QCB's comment.

BoatShoes;1432030 wrote:District of Columbia from limiting lawful purposes of gun ownership...

You're joking right? The court stopped DC from infringing on traditionally lawful purposes, not from limiting lawful purposes notwithstanding.

I made that very clear, in fact I explictly said that.

You're grasping at straws here bro, and you're wrong.

BoatShoes;1432033 wrote:I understand what you're saying...but don't you see? the Supreme Court took away the power for state's to determine what a lawful purpose is! !

NO IT DIDN'T. It took away the state's power to infringe on traditionally lawful purposes! The state can still restrict gun ownership/usage in a non-traditionally protected forum.