|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Scotus rules 2nd amendment is an individual right | |||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
petrophysics writes:
quote: Incorrect. The opposite is true. "Blue" states have less crime than "red." Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
randman writes:
quote: It seems you have the NRA version of the amendment that begins with an ellipsis. In reality, the amendment reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The last time I checked, you are not a militia ("Yeah, we got a 'militia.' His name is Bob.") The last time I checked, the purpose of a militia is not self-defense against criminals or hunting. If you read the opinion, it's all about parsing of words but for all his parsing, Scalia can't seem to understand that the "prefatory" clause he identifies specifically and directly provides the context in which the "operative" clause must be interpreted. Even though he directly acknowledges it:
Scalia in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER writes: In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” Nothing in there about self-defense or hunting. Now, before you hit that "Reply" button, think for just a minute: Might there be something else in the Constitution that would be relevant to the question of an individual right to own a gun for personal reasons? Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Artemis Entreri responds to me:
quote:quote: It carries down. More "liberal" areas have less crime than more "conservative" areas. In fact, more "liberal" areas tend to be better on standards of living from crime, divorce, education, teen pregnancy, obesity, etc.
quote: In and of itself, it doesn't seem to. Canada also has a high gun ownership rate but a much lower crime rate than the United States. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Artemis Entreri writes:
quote: And Miss Manners has a heart attack. Strange how it is that the people who are so against the concept of etiquette are the ones who are so upset to see other people doing things they don't like and want to stop it. They're the ones that want to turn matters of sociability into matters of law. If you expect others to be tolerant of you, then you have to be tolerant of them in return. I seem to recall a certain president's "favorite philosopher" saying something like that...doing unto others as you would have them do unto you and all that. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Chiroptera writes:
quote: Not quite. It isn't so much who makes up the militia as it is what is the purpose of the militia. Remember: The military forces have no jurisdiction in the United States, per se. The Army and the Navy are there to be used against foreign powers. Internal issues are for the militia to hand. The definition of "militia" isn't defined in the Constitution and while at the time, it certainly meant "able-bodied men," I very much doubt anybody today would deny women from being part of the militia. Remember, too: The States are considered somewhat sovereign powers in their own right. That's why the military is kept out of State issues. That's a Federal power which shouldn't be used on State actions. The militia is there in service to the State. The way the Second Amendment is written, it is clear that the point of the right of the people to own a gun is so that it can be used in service of the State as part of the militia. As I mention elsewhere: Might there not be another part of the Constitution that would deal with the question of the right of the people to own a gun for purposes other than the militia? One of the reasons the DC ban managed to get as far as it did is because technically, DC is not a State. It was created as an independent entity because it was felt that the seat of the government should not be held hostage by the whims of the State in which it resides. The way the law works there is quite different from that which happens in an actual State. To claim "State's rights" with regard to DC is inappropriate. But again: Might there not be another part of the Constitution that would deal with the question of the right of the people to own a gun for purposes other than the militia? To my mind, this isn't a Second Amendment question at all. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT writes:
quote: And the US can be compared to the USSR, Turkey, Nazi-era Germany, China, Guatamala, Uganda, and Cambodia why? You can't think of a more significant reason why the political dissidents were rounded up and killed other than gun control? Are you seriously claiming that the exterminations wouldn't have happened otherwise? How is it that so many other countries such as the UK have extremely tight gun control and don't have any of these problems you mention? What other common thread runs through your examples?
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." ” George W. Bush The "No Fly" list is up to a million names. Do you seriously think there are a million terrorists in the US? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
subbie writes:
quote: So the Second Amendment begins with an ellipsis? What part of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is irrelevant to the meaning of the Second Amendment?
quote: And yours and Scalia's attempt to avoid what is, directly stated, the clear text of the amendment ("militia") is disingenuous. For the third time: Might there be another part of the Constitution that deals with an individual right to own a gun for something other than the service of the State as part of the militia? What on earth makes this a [I][B]Second[/I][/b] Amendment question? Just because it's about a gun doesn't mean it has anything to do with the Second Amendment. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
subbie responds to me:
quote: The part where it says your right to bear those arms is for a reason other than in service to the State as part of the militia.
quote:quote: That isn't an answer. At best, it is nothing more than repetition of Scalia's (typically) incoherent argument: That if I tell you that I'm about to say something in reference to a certain concept, then you are free to completely ignore that concept in trying to determine what I mean by what I say. You cannot understand what the "operative clause" (to use Scalia's term) means without first investigating what the "prefatory clause" says. That's why Scalia's interpretation is so inane: He does it backwards. He goes through the motions of interpreting what "the people" means without bothering to realize that there is a restriction on what it might possibly mean. In short, Scalia goes on and on about something the Amendment clearly states it is not talking about. This is exactly akin to the error made by the conservatives (surprise!) that "Gore said he invented the internet." Ignoring the fact that Gore literally did not say that (the word "invent" or any derivative did not escape his lips), the fact remains that Gore's statement came as a result of Wolf Blitzer asking him to talk about his accomplishments as a Senator. Therefore, it is disingenuous at best to think that anything Gore was saying should be interpreted as implying that he was pulling all-nighters coding the TCP/IP stack and living on Hot Pockets and Mountain Dew. He was referring to his work in Congress as a Senator that led to the creation of the internet. And what do Senators in Congress do? They pass laws that provide funding for projects that result in things like the internet. And, indeed, the High Performance Computing and Communication Act that was the basis for the funding of the project that resulted in the Internet as we know it today is known as the "Gore Act" because he was the one who came up with it. He was the one who was championing it. That's the point: You cannot possibly understand what the people's right to bear arms means without first recognizing that the entire topic is about how the State is going to defend itself through the use of the militia. That's why you have a right to have a gun as far as the Second Amendment goes. It isn't for personal protection. It isn't for hunting. It's so that when the State calls you up to defend it, you have something to fight with. Which is a problem for DC: It isn't a State, though I do admit ignorance about what the "militia" means with regards to US holdings that aren't States such as territories, protectorates, and other insular areas. Given that the reason for the militia is that the US Army and Navy do not have jurisdiction within the United States, I don't know how DC, which is specifically outside of all State jurisdictions, would handle an attack upon itself. I have a vague recollection that it is, indeed, the military who are charged with protecting DC, but I won't swear to that. If that is the case, then no, you don't have a right to a gun under the Second Amendment in DC: There is no militia for you to serve under there. But there's more to the right to own a gun than the militia.
quote: So close. What does the substance mean without the justification? The First Amendment doesn't mention "political speech," and yet somehow "freedom of speech" has been interpreted to mean political speech rather than personal speech. It's why you can make any political statement you want but say something "obscene" and you run into trouble because you weren't being "political" when you said it. And the reason why the interpretation has gone that way has to do with unstated assumptions about what the term "speech" means. So if we understand this with regard to the First Amendment, even though that "preamble," as you call it, isn't there, why do we get to ignore it with regard to the Second Amendment when it is explicitly stated that the purpose of the right is with regard to the militia?
quote: I didn't say there was. What I said was that the Second Amendment only speaks to the first, not to the second. If you are wondering about the right to have a gun for a reason other than the militia, you're not going to find anything in the Second Amendment to help you. Thankfully, the Constitution is more than just the Second Amendment.
quote: And if you can provide an instance of me calling you a name, you might have something there. Please respond to what I actually say, not what you wish I would say.
quote:quote: So why does the fact that they're ignored make it any less true? I should think that a direct statement that the people retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution would have something to bear on the case, wouldn't you? Clearly the courts understand that an implement can have multiple uses and the fact that one use is illegal doesn't automatically overshadow the legitimate uses. This reasoning was what led to the ability for you to have a video recorder to tape a television program and watch it later. The fact that such a device can be used to circumvent copyright does not negate the right of a person to use it for his own, private use. So the fact that guns are used in crimes doesn't negate the fact that a gun can be used for things like self-defense and hunting. Ignoring the hunting aspect, I should think that it is well established that the people have a right to self-defense. They even have the right to use deadly force in doing so. So if the people coming at you are using guns, why would we necessarily tie the hands of the victim? None of this is Second Amendment. It's all Ninth and Tenth. I certainly agree with you that those two amendments have become the bastard children of the Constitution, but that doesn't make it any less real. The Second Amendment is about the militia. That hardly means that's the end of the discussion of what the Constitution has to say about guns. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
subbie responds to me:
quote:quote: Two problems here. First, let's deal with the details: Let's not play the creationist's game of pretending one dictionary definition is the sole meaning. That would be disingenuous.
dis·in·gen·u·ous (ds'n-jn'y-s) adj. 1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine). 2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naf. 3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive. What part of "calculating" is inappropriate? Yours and Scalia's argument is to approach the subject backwards: To argue about the "operative" clause (to use Scalia's words) before examining the "prefatory" clause. In doing so, you build up so much momentum regarding "the people," that you expect you can just roll over the "preamble" (to use your words) that indicate that the amendment isn't talking about that. As I said...it seems you think the Second Amendment begins with an ellipsis. There's a reason that the NRA prints the Second Amendment that way...and I mean that literally. In their literature, they hardly ever quote the militia reference. It always begins with an ellipsis. How are we to deal with the fact that you avoided discussing the "preamble" (to use your words). You know it's there, you know that that is the point I am focusing upon, but you skip it to keep banging on the words "the people" as if that's the only thing the amendment has to say on the subject. Calculating, not straightforward, not candid, pretending to be unaware. Why is it "disingenuous" doesn't apply?
quote: Physician, heal thyself! Now for the second part: Pointing out something as "disingenuous" is not calling someone a name. And the fact that you ignored 95% of the post to focus on two sentences would seem to indicate that I was correct in describing your argument as disingenuous. If you don't wish to defend your argument, that's fine. But don't pretend that it's because I'm insulting you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT responds to me:
quote: Right...because they were clearly in a position to provide resistance. They were organized, had significant provisions, support of neighboring groups, etc. The only thing that was lacking and would have tipped the tide was guns. That they had just gone through a devastating war could have been countered if they had just had guns. That the world was going through an economic crisis could have easily been overcome if they had just had guns.
quote: Nazis? You're comparing the United States to Nazi Germany? So what does that make the UK? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote: Right...because before the 1900s and the development of movies, there was no violence to speak of. This is the same argument that was made 50 years ago with respect to comic books. If it was a crap argument then, what makes it legitimate now? Or are you saying that comic books cause violence, too? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Artemis Enteri responds to me:
quote:quote: (*chuckle*) You clearly haven't been paying attention. My style of posting is to respond pretty much to every single word the original poster wrote. It pisses some people off since it generates very long posts and it can come across as being pedantic.
quote: Because people are capable of considering things that don't directly affect them.
quote: And when, after the founding of the US, did the UK have as bloody a civil war as the US did?
quote: Indeed. And this has relevance how? You do realize that our right of habeas corpus, enshrined in the Constitution, is based in British law, right? In fact, a great deal of US law is pulled directly from UK law. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote: Um, just what do you think my position is? You have been paying attention, haven't you?
quote: Yes, but you targeted Hollywood. Let's not play dumb as to why.
quote: If you would bother to read my posts, you'd know my position. When are you going to do your own homework? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote: The "problem" is that the Second Amendment clearly indicates that your right to bear arms as one of "the people" is not based in a right to self-defense, hunting, pleasure shooting, etc. It is based specifically on the need for "a well regulated militia." You are not a militia. Note, this doesn't mean you don't have an individual right to own a firearm. It simply means that the Second Amendment is not what protects that right. The ruling is bad law not because of the result, in and of itself, but because the justification presented does not actually support the conclusion.
quote: That you are not a militia. The Second Amendment grants you the right to a firearm so that you can use it as part of the militia. Scalia's argument is backwards, focusing on "the people" rather than on the restriction: "A well regulated militia." The Second Amendment has always been interpreted as being in reference to a militia...up until now. Again, my point is not that you don't have a personal right to a firearm. It's that the Second Amendment does not protect that right and this decision, based upon a prima facie misreading of the Second Amendment, is a bad decision. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote:quote: I know. But I asked you nicely not to play dumb. You said, "Hollywood," for a very specific reason. Let us not pretend that you were not using it as a shortcut reference for more than simply "forms of entertainment."
quote:quote: You doing your homework would be a whole lot better, though. You would learn about the background as to why the answer is what it is. That way, you would be able to respond without making more assumptions than you need to.
quote:quote: (*chuckle*) Read my posts and find out for yourself. Homework for you: Quote me where I said anything of the sort. Be specific. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024