Scotus rules 2nd amendment is an individual right

quote:

---

Bottom line: In a country of 60 million people there were 52 deaths due to guns in 2007 and 784 murders in total.
In the US: "In 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, an average of about 81 people died every day from gunfire in the united states. All told 29,569 people were killed that year by firearms"
Go figure...........

​

surely end of conversation?

---

In 2004, 16,750 of those 29569 deaths from firearms were suicides. Them not having a gun wouldn't prevent them from killing themselves.That leaves us to 12,819 deaths from firearms, in general.If you look at murders, 70.3% of the 16,137 homocides were from firearms, or 11,344 people. Out of 285.7 million people, that's only 0.004%, or 40 people per million killed by a firearm in a year. That's not bad enough to warrant not having guns.

Of course not. Why would that end the conversation?That's surely not reason enough to deny people their right to own firearms.

I haven't read this thread.The topic is the SCOTUS ruling that me, as one of "the people", I have an indivdual right to own a firearm.What's the problem?It seems straight forward from the Constitutiton. I have been granted this legal right. What is the argument against me having this right? That guns are dangerous? I see them as another "tool". Should "hammers" be register and regulate? What about "knives"? What about "firearms"? Where is the line?The NFA, while being a tax law, defines the categories on what is and is not a "firearm".For example, "Destructive Devices", for anyone claiming that nukes and tanks are appart of the 2nd A, aren't "firearms" so the right to them is not granted by the 2nd.To say that guns cause violence is the same as saying that pencils cause plagarism. And then we can argue that allowing pencils makes it easier for people to plagarize, and makes plagarism more effective, like guns make it easier to harm, and makes that harm more effective.Personally, I would like more guns about. I'd like to carry one myself and assume the man next to me also has one. I bet that all these assholes I bump into on the streets of St Louis would be far more cordial if they thought I was packing. That they "know" that I'm not yields all sorts of assholishness that I bump into everyday (well, maybe not everyday, but all the days that I do go downtown. I mean, no body ever says "excuse me" anymore. No simple "hellos", nothing but a bunch of assholes bumping into each other without remark. It sucks ass. Nobody is friendly and it really "grinds my gears" [thanks Peter Griffen]. I honestly believe that if all of the law abiding citizens were "packing", then those assholes would be less assholish. Its that fact that we really cannot do anything about it, that permits the behavior. Now, having a gun on your hip doesn't mean you could actually "do anything" about it. Their use is strictly regulated. But it certainly, to me, makes people more friendly to each other. No talking shit or failing to excuse thyself would not be "acceptable" and people would be more cordial.)And that's not eaven he reason I'm going to go buy a gun. I want one. I like them. Its a good thing to have when its "needed", and when its "needed" its a horrible thing to lack. Plus, as a recreational activity, shooting a gun is highly entertaining. The sense of accomplishment you get with improving your aim is right up there with kicking ass on an MMORGP because of the accomplishments I've acheived. Its just good ol fun stuff.For those that need a justification for owning "bigger" firearms, me simply enjoying shooting them is reason enough. I like them and I want them. I have a right to have them, so you need a damn good reason to prevent me from having them. The danger of them, while considering that a hammer can also be danagerous, isn't really an argument against having them.Holy shit that was a rant.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : changed NRA to NFA

Come to St. Louis and walk around with me for a while. That'll give you a benchmark with which to judge scary-ness. You might even want to have a gun afterwards.

Yep. Whoops. I'll edit that.

Do you guys have CCW in the cities? Its, like, the "most dangerous city" in the U.S. Well, StL or Detroit....

Clearly? Isn't the 2nd the least clear of all the amendments?But anyways, I don't agree that it is based specifically on the need for "a well regulated militia." The need for the militia is for the security of the free state. The 2nd doesn't explicitly say that the right to arms is specifically for the militia and it doesn't say that we don't have a right to self-defense, hunting, pleasure shooting, etc.I read your interpretation of what the 2nd says, but to me it seems that you are simply wrong. I don't care enough to respond to the individual points you made, but in general, you seem to be basing you interpretation on your conclusion rather than visa versa. You start with the presumption that the second doesn't grant the right, and then do whatever interpreting you have to do to get there.I just don't think that "your" way of reading it is the only way. Why not? That, or you're just wrong in your interpretation of the 2nd. Why not? So if I am a part of the militia, then its all good.Other than your opinion that the argument is "backwards", which I couldn't care less about.

What constitutes the "militia", how is it "regulated", and at what point does it become regulated "well"?.... pretty much the whole thing is ambiguous. The perfatory clause sets up the principle behind it but doesn't base the right specifically on it. Can you read? I'm not saying that at all...The right to arms is for the people, not for the militia. The militia is for the security of the free state and you need to have the people armed to have a well regulated militia. Right, it starts with a perfatory clause which is the "justification". But rights don't need to be justified and the 2nd is the only amendment with a perfatory clause... a justification. That should raise a red flag right there that this justification is not the limit on what the right is for. The amendment is not meant to say that the people need guns just so they can have a militia.Besides, the amendment was all kinds of chopped up and reworded and misworded. It doesn't necessarily say that the reason that people need arms is for the militia. It is just justifying the need by providing one reason that having arms is a good thing. I/We could be. It depends on what is regulated and when it is well. That was just the one justification that was used, but it doesn't limit the right to just for the militia and the justification wasn't even needed in the first place.

You cannot carry in the city....There was a good point made though, that since DC is not a State, then the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to it. But still, it is the People, the individuals, who have the right to be armed.

Its not as crystal clear as you allude it to be .

quote:

---

The Militia Act of 1903 divided what had been the militia into what it termed the "organized" militia, created from portions of the former state guards to become state National Guard units, and the "unorganized" militia consisting of all males from ages 17 to 45, with the exception of certain officials and others, which is codified in 10 USC 311.
source

---

And:

quote:

---

Following the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the de jure defintion of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence broadened once again. The court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times, and still today in this originalist decision, included both the Federally-organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States. "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'”those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range" (7) ... Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them"(23).
source

---

So, contrary to your claim in Message 134 that I am not part of a militia, it seems that I AM a part of the militia.So right there you’re argument that the 2nd doesn’t grant me a right to a firearm because I am not a part of the militia falls apart and has been refuted. From here:

quote:

---

"The Second Amendment, unusually for constitutional provisions, contains a statement of purpose as well as a guarantee of a right to bear arms." 1 This unusual attribute, some argue, is reason for courts to interpret the Second Amendment quite differently than they interpret other constitutional provisions -- perhaps to the point of reading it as having virtually no effect on government action. 2

​

My modest discovery 3 is that the Second Amendment is actually not unusual at all: Many contemporaneous state constitutional provisions are structured similarly. Rhode Island's 1842 constitution, its first, provides.

​

The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty

​

Compare this to the Second Amendment's

​

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 1784 New Hampshire Constitution says

​

In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed

​

The 1780 Massachusetts Constitution -- followed closely by the 1784 New Hampshire Constitution and the 1786 Vermont Constitution -- says

​

The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.

​

I list dozens more such provisions in the Appendix.

​

These provisions, I believe, shed some light on the interpretation of the Second Amendment:

​

1. They show that the Second Amendment should be seen as fairly commonplace, rather than strikingly odd.

​

2. They rebut the claim that a right expires when courts conclude that the justification given for the right is no longer valid or is no longer served by the right.

​

3. They show that operative clauses are often both broader and narrower than their justification clauses, thus casting doubt on the argument that the right exists only when (in the courts' judgment) it furthers the goals identified in the justification clause.

​

4. They point to how the two clauses might be read together, without disregarding either.

---

It is that the justification does not limit the right to the justification. Yes, it was. It isn't important to my point though, but for your information, I was referring to all this stuff:

quote:

---

The first part of the of the Second Amendment is a shortened version of language found in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, largely the work of George Mason. Similar language appears in many of the Revolutionary Era state Constitutions. This Declaration states
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
[snip]
The original text of what became the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor of the House of Representatives of the first session of the First Congress was:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person
[snip]
. On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on August 17 and August 20.[48] These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:
A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The Senate returned to this Amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "For the common defence" next to the words "Bear Arms" was defeated.[51] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:
A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the Amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":
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.
This version was transmitted to the states for ratification.
source

---

The 2nd starts with a justification. That justification does not limit the right to that justification. Even if the right was limited to the justification, the militia, individuals not in the National Guard would still be granted the right to firearms by the 2nd amendment. Your position is indefensible.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed the size=1 text to size=2 (normal size) for the material quoted from "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment...". That was a lot of fine print to try to read.