Daley "very optimistic" on eve of McDonald

[TPaine7]

Mayor Daley said today he’s “very optimistic” the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold Chicago’s strictest-in-the-nation handgun ban and refused to even discuss a legal fallback.

“What’s at stake for those of us on the front-line … is nothing less than the safety of our streets and our families and all of our children,” Daley told a news conference at police headquarters on the eve of oral arguments in the landmark case.

“How many more of our children, our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers must needlessly die because guns are too easily available in our society today?”

If the Chicago ban is struck down, it will endanger the lives of police officers, Daley warned.

Source: http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2077047,daley-supreme-court-handgun-ban-030110.article

I hope Daley's chances of victory are as good as his logic. "Do it for the children and for the police officers--those of US on the front lines." Someone needs to explain to him that being surrounded by a police security detail does not mean that one is "on the front lines" fighting crime.

Later on he equates each gun confiscated with a child's life--“If we pick up 12,000 guns, that’s 12,000 children." As if even gang-bangers kill one child per gun.

What a clown!

[ChicagoSuz219]

1. I live in Chicago & I hope they uphold the ban. n/t

[PavePusher]

2. Why?

Beacause it's working so well?

Oops...

[bossy22]

6. they probably won't

because doing so would resort to a consitutional logic which could endanger all other rights. Think about it, a reversal of the current incorporation trend could one day lead to free speech be un-incorporated

[DonP]

8. I live there too, about a half mile from Otis McDonald - what's your point?

Or are you falling for Daley's line of emotional crap? This isn't about guns on the street or gangs or shooting cops. That's Daley's regular smoke screen and the statistics have proven for over 22 years that he's full of it.

What possible benefit is there to not permitting law abiding citizens, that have already been screened by the Feds and State Police (FOID Card) from owning one type of gun in their own home?

Maybe where you live you don't have to worry about gangs threatening you in your own home. McDonald does.

But heck he's just a poor, older Black man. I'm sure the cops in the 22nd district are willing to watch McDonald's house, front and back (just like they watch Daley's home 24/7 with an armed force) It's much more important that you "Feel" better by not having guns in homes, right?

Daley is pissing away millions of $ of our tax money on what is going to be a losing cause. Then he is going to piss away 10's of millions more $ fighting this every step of the way. It's the Supreme Court and the Constitution. Why does that mean nothing to people like Daley and you?

But what the heck, it's not like we need money for another 1000 cops or money for transportation or schools. That money is much better spent on his private, hypocritical crusade.

[gorfle]

9. The ban has no effect on the people causing the crime.

Chicago's firearm violence problem is most directly related to Chicago's gang and drug-violence problem.

Today, Chicago has 70-75 gangs operating with around 100,000 members:

http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs27/27612/estimate.htm

To put this into perspective, this is about twice as many troops as the United States has involved in Afghanistan right now.

Chicago has a drug-fueled, gang-sponsored youth violence problem. These people have the financial means and incentives to circumvent any firearm restrictions you could dream up.

Firearm laws, nor any other kind of law, are going to have any effect on this outlaw population in Chicago.

[spin]

15. Why? ....

are you a second class citizen? I can own firearms and have owned them in large urban areas.

Why should I have rights that you don't?

[ChicagoSuz219]

17. I. don't. like. guns. Period. n/t

[Statistical]

19. Some people don't like free speech.

Or that women should have right to control their bodies.

Rights are subject to your "likes".

It isn't that hard of a concept.

[ChicagoSuz219]

29. I like free speech & women's right to choose...

...it's guns I don't like.

Why is that so threatening to everyone?

If I was a Supreme Court Justice, I could understand you caring what I think. I'm not.

Guns scare me & I don't like being around them.

[Statistical]

31. Not liking guns I can understand.

Hoping the Supreme Courts violates its sacred oath and upholds an unconstitutional ban which does an end run around the protection granted by the 2nd amendment is the part I can't understand.
If it can be done for guns (which you would be favor of) then it can just as easily be done for anything else.
Either rights are protected or they are not.


The funny thing is under a gun ban you are still around guns. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of illegal guns in Chicago. Gun ban doesn't do anything to change that.

[ChicagoSuz219]

33. I don't sit on the Supreme Court....

...my personal opinion shouldn't matter to you.

When you've been threatened by a gun, then we'll talk...

In the meantime, save your breath... you will never change my mind on this particular subject.

[GreenStormCloud]

47. OK, I have been threatened by a gun, so we can talk.

About 40 years ago, I had a nut-case hold a loaded handgun to my head while he talked for over an hour about the voices from a higher dimension that controlled him.

I am not afraid of guns. I have several in the house. I carry a couple of guns on me when I leave the house, and my wife carries one. She saved herself from being murdered a few years ago by using her gun.

[ChicagoSuz219]

53. Glad you survived your ordeals...

How would you handle a drive-by shooting?

[Statistical]

59. I thought guns were banned in Chicago? How was there a driveby shooting?

Oh that's right gun bans only affect the law abiding.

[ChicagoSuz219]

63. They affect the law-abiding & the not-so-law abiding equally.

Why would anyone who's not a cop need a handgun in the City anyway?

[TPaine7]

64. Why would a cop need a handgun in Chicago?

To protect herself or someone else from criminals?

People other than cops (and who are not in the immediate vicinity of a cop) need protection too. They don't need a detective to figure out who killed them or to catch their rapists after the fact, they need the ability to protect themselves and their children and husbands.

[ChicagoSuz219]

67. I'm done playing...

...there are at least 3 other new postings on this topic. Maybe you can convince someone over there.

Bye.

[Statistical]

65. They don't affect not-so-law abiding because by definition those people don't abide by the laws.

The gun ban hasn't been followed by criminals.

The ONLY people following the gun ban are law abiding citizens.

Why does a cop need a handgun?

If you the victim of crime what are you going to do? Call the cops? What are they going to do? Bring a gun.

Responsible citizens feel they can cut out the middle man.

As the joke goes:
Why do you carry a gun?
Because cops are too heavy to carry!

[ChicagoSuz219]

66. There are at least 3 other new postings on this issue...

...go convince some other people for awhile. I'm bored with this.

Ciao!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

96. The old ostrich technique. Impressive.

[GreenStormCloud]

61. Thank you. I would handle the drive-by situation by two methods.

First is avoid them. Drive-bys are more likely in some places than in others. Drive-bys almost always have a specific target and are usually drug or gang-related. Don't do drugs and don't hang out with gangs, and you are unlikely to be subjected to a drive-bys. Drive-bys aren't new. Chicago seems to have invented them in the Al Capone days when rival speak-easys were the targets. So my first tactic is to avoid places where drive-bys are likely to occur.

Second - if I somehow do get caught in one - SHOOT BACK, accurately. I carry concealed, and am a good shot. Unless I am taken down in the first spray, I will almost certainly, quickly, score some hits on the shooters.

BTW - Most gang members are very poor shots.

However, Chicago would not allow me to be armed, so we are speaking in the hypothetical for Chicago. States that allow concealed carry don't have as much of a problem with drive-bys as do states that do allow concealed carry.

Also, please note that my guns won't be doing any drive-by shooting. That is because I am a law-abiding person. I have undergone an FBI background investigation to be able to get my concealed handgun license, taken classes, been fingerprinted, tested on self-defense law, and demonstrated proficiency with my handgun. I scored 150 points out of a possible 150 in actual shooting accuracy. My guns are not a danger to any peaceful person. I, with my guns, am a very deadly danger to those who would offer violent harm to me, or to an innocent while I happen to be there.

[ChicagoSuz219]

62. Gang-bangers are bad shots...

...probably why so many young kids have been gunned down by stray bullets.

It's no comfort to my friends with the bullet hole in their bedroom window, though.

You sound like you've gone thru all the channels & have followed all the rules & probably have respect for all human life.

Obviously, you're not the guy I'm worried about. It's the majority of the rest of them.

[GreenStormCloud]

69. You are correct, and have touched on the core of the problem.

We completely agree that we want to take guns away from gang-bangers and other violent people. The question is, "How?".

First, we must make a distinction between those who own guns and follow the rules (Legal gun owners) and those who do not. Legal guns owners number about 80 million in the U.S. and they are rarely a problem. The gun violence comes from the small slice of the population who are violent. Unfortunately, many guns laws, such a Chicago's gun bans accomplish nothing except to disarm the law-abiding. Since criminals, by definition disobey laws, they also disobey gun laws. So the criminals remain armed while the law-abiding are disarmed. That does nothing but create easy prey for criminals.

Almost always, a violent person starts getting a police record early in life, so they aren't terribly hard to spot. Current laws already make it illegal for them to own guns.

Criminals tend to avoid gun-shows. That is because gun-shows are crawling with cops, and you have to enter past several uniformed officers. Criminals don't want to take the chance of being spotted and arrrested. They don't get their guns at gun shows.

Typically they rely upon stolen guns and straw purchases. The BATFE has the ability to spot straw purchasers and investigate them. They should be given the ability to do so. Although BATFE agents such as this one http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x297739 who claims some toy guns were machine guns seriously undercuts the credibility of the BATFE. Improving the BATFE and sending them after straw purchasers would do some to alleviate the problem.

Stolen guns are the major way that guns get into the criminal circuit.

Even if guns could be totally removed from the U.S., the same smugglers that bring in drugs would simply add guns to the list. Mexico almost prohibits private gun ownership, yet they are awash in criminal guns. Contrary to the media reports, those guns aren't mostly coming from the U.S. You can't buy rocket launchers, grenades, machine guns in U.S. stores. They aren't even on the shelves or in the back rooms. The cartels guns are being mostly smuggled in from other countries. You can buy a genuine AK-47 for abut $75.00 in parts of Africa. A few hundred of them would be easy to hide in a ship, and add some nice cream to skim to the profits of the ship's captain.

Keeping fun out of the hands of criminals is a difficult problem, but that problem is not solved by disarming the law-abiding. It only makes us helpless in the face of violent crime. Not that the UK, which is disarmed except for criminals, has a violent crime rate that is five times that of the U.S. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=299273&mesg_id=299287

BTW - I made a typo in the above post about my shooting score. It was 250/250, not 150/150.

[ChicagoSuz219]

70. You should move to Chicago & become my bodyguard... ;-)

How do you feel about drinking & guns? I think that alcohol sometimes is the only difference between a law-abiding gun enthusiast & a murderer/ manslaughterer (is that a word?)...

[GreenStormCloud]

71. All of us on this forum are solidly against drinking while having a loaded gun.

Just as drinking and driving don't mix, neither do booze and guns mix.

In most states it is against the law, but I can't speak for all states.

Usually, a person who has a problem with drinking and agression will have already gotten into trouble because of that problem and it will already be illegal for that person to have a gun, or to even touch one. The NICS check will usually pick them up and stop them. (The NICS check is a computerized check of a person's national police record that is made at the time of purchase of a firearm from a licensed dealer.)

I have no problem with carrying a gun into a restaurant that serves drinks, as long as the gunner doesn't drink. I do it myself. But I do have problem with carrying into a bar. The difference, for me is the focus. A restaurant serves mainly food and one does not normally encounter drunks in a restaurant. In a bar, drunks are to be expected. Even if the gunner is not drinking (Designated driver?) there is still an increased likelyhood of encountering an agressive drunk. Here in Texas one can carry into a restaurant, but not in a bar, and that seems to work for us.

My reason for carrying into a restaurant isn't because I fear crime inside the place, but it is because I always carry, and I don't want to be unarmed while walking in the parking lot.

BTW - I wish to compliment you for your civility and rationality in this discussion. Please feel free to ask any gun-related questions of me that you may wish too. If there are any that you may not wish to post on the open forum, you may PM me.

[ChicagoSuz219]

84. You've been respectful, as well.

Some of the others... not so much.

I'm getting beaten up over at HuffPost, too. I've got to learn to stop posting on this topic... ;-)

Alot of what I wrote was to be funny... people took exception to that... alot of their responses were nasty.

I like your screen name...are you a Native American?

You can pm me, if you like. Maybe we can talk about some other topic. There's soooooooo much going on in the world right now.

[GreenStormCloud]

86. No, I am Scott-British.

It is somewhat difficult to come up with a unique name since DU has so many accounts. I was sitting at my desk thinking, and looked out the window. There was a thunderstorm, so I thought, "StormCloud", but decided that somebody else probably had it, so I put Green in front of it.

I mostly hang out here in the gungeon. I joined DU hoping to occasionally be able to provide solid information about guns to people like yourself who have an open mind. Sometimes I will post in another forum, but mostly I don't. There are several reasons for that.

One is lack of knowledge. I like to be really well informed about something before I talk about it.

Second is boredom. I get bored posting where everyone agrees with me.

So in the gungeon I find a topic that I care about, am knowledgable about, am involved in, and where people both agree and disagree with me.

[ChicagoSuz219]

87. OMG!

I had no idea this was a gun site. I just saw the headline in latest news & clicked 'cause it said 'Chicago..'

Thanks for the heads up... I know now to skip over this one. Too much abuse - except from you, of course. ;-)

They all must have thought I came here to make trouble... LOL

***********

I post on the other places, as well. Some people over there even like me... LOL Some don't.

The Chicago Tribune posted something I wrote on their website the other day & several other papers & websites picked it up. It was called "My plan for healthcare..."

If you're interested, I'll send you the link.

[GreenStormCloud]

109. Reading some of your other posts in this thread.

I can understand being afraid of something, in your case guns. I have been around others who have similar fears. Usually they do not know I am armed and I don't tell them. After all, there is nothing to be gained by alarming them.

The primary issue in the McDonald case is the right of a law-abiding person to have a gun in their residence for self-protection. Even under the best of circumstances, if someone is breaking into your home and you call 911, it will be a few minutes until the police get there, or it could be much longer. During that wait, you are on your own and your life can depend upon what you do. Some of us choose to fight if that happens, and a handgun is the best tools for general purpose close combat. The law in many cities forbids a resident to have a gun to fight criminal entry to their homes. We believe that a government has to right to take away a person's self-defense.

However, I you don't like guns, and it is OK to not like them, then none fo us would insist that you get one. We simply want the right for all people to have them if they feed the needs for them, and If they don't have a criminal record.

[GreenStormCloud]

110. Reading some of your other posts in this thread.

I can understand being afraid of something, in your case guns. I have been around others who have similar fears. Usually they do not know I am armed and I don't tell them. After all, there is nothing to be gained by alarming them.

The primary issue in the McDonald case is the right of a law-abiding person to have a gun in their residence for self-protection. Even under the best of circumstances, if someone is breaking into your home and you call 911, it will be a few minutes until the police get there, or it could be much longer. During that wait, you are on your own and your life can depend upon what you do. Some of us choose to fight if that happens, and a handgun is the best tools for general purpose close combat. The law in many cities forbids a resident to have a gun to fight criminal entry to their homes. We believe that a government has to right to take away a person's self-defense.

However, I you don't like guns, and it is OK to not like them, then none fo us would insist that you get one. We simply want the right for all people to have them if they feed the needs for them, and If they don't have a criminal record.

[ChicagoSuz219]

112. Thanks.

I didn't grow up around guns. I don't have as much of a problem with people who did, who were taught the proper way how to use - & not use them. What's appropriate & what's not, etc.

At this point in time, handguns are illegal in Chicago (with few exceptions) and have been for 28 years. I've lived here 23 years, so it's always been the law here that I know. I came from New York where the law was even more stringent.

When the case goes to the US Supreme Court, I think it will turn into a States/Cities' rights case, more than a gun one.

There's nothing to hunt in Chicago except people. The ones who do have guns get them illegally & have no training in how to use them. Giving easy access to others would be scary to me. I remember, growing up, that someone shot someone over a parking space in New York; another time that there was a shoot-out on a line at a gas station.

I just don't feel comfortable around them... so I stay away.

[GreenStormCloud]

141. This is going to be a new situation for you.

New situations can be difficult and strange. It is OK to feel the way that you do. As you have pointed out, you grew up in a setting where only some government personnel and criminals were armed. Now that is almost certainly about to change. Now a new set of people will be able to have guns. This new set of people will actually help the situation out. This new set will be composed of law-abiding people who will take firearms ownership seriously. They will not be adding to the guns being carried on the street (IL does not allow concealed carry), but will be in the homes of people who feel they need to be able to defend themselves against criminals.

Look at the other major cities in Illinois, and in the surrounding states. They allow people to have handguns in their homes and it has not created a problem there.

Eventually, Illinois may allow shall-issue concealed carry. Your neighboring states, except WI already do. WI looks like it will so adopt the shall-issue system. Several states publish the crime data for those who have carry permits (Estimated at 5 to 6 million nation-wide)and CCWers have extremely low rates of crime. We are safer with guns, stastically, than even the police are.

The shoot-outs that you mentioned were between people who were already criminals. You are correct to fear criminals with guns. But law-abiding peaceful people who are ready to defend their homes by using guns will not be a threat to you at all. In fact, they will be your friends.

But I understand that the transitiion to easier gun access for law-abiding people can be a nervous one to a person who hasn't lived in it.

[ChicagoSuz219]

151. They can already have shotguns & rifles...

...why do they need handguns & automatic weapons, as well?

Can't they accomplish the protect-their-home thing already?

[GreenStormCloud]

154. Depends upon the situation.

You are asking good questions. That shows that you do have an open mind.

Rifles and shotguns are long guns, and as such can be unwieldy in a close in fight. They require two hands to use, and you may only have one hand available as the other hand may be busy (Pushing a child to safety) or injured. If the tactical situation allows it, definitely a shotgun is far superior to any other gun, but that is IF it can be used. If you can gather the family a safe room and point the gun at the door and wait (While on the cell phone to the police. Have a hands free set-up for the cell.)then a shotgun is absolutely what you want. A blast from a shotgun is devastating and will often put the bad guy down with the first shot, but not always.

But if you have to check the house out, room to room, a shotgun is a poor choice. (BTW - As a general rule, NEVER search your house for a burglar. Get to a safe room and make him come to you. If he leaves instead, that's OK, you and family are alive. But sometimes, you may have to search your own house.) The problem with a long gun is that the barrel sticks out so far that you face the possibility that a hidden burglar could begin to wrestle you for the gun.

Rifles are a poor choice as the bullets penetrate too much. Even a weak rifle will still go through several walls, after it has gone through the bad guy. Criminals don't have much use for them as they are too hard to conceal. And they also have the same disadvantages as a shotgun - long and clumsy.

Handguns have the weakest hitting power, but they are the most versatile. If needed, they can be fired with one hand, although greatest accuracy is achieved with a two-handed stance. At inside-the-home distances, a handgun can be fired accurately by just pointing it. (Takes some practice. An Air-Soft model allows this to be done cheaply and safely. Airsoft guns shoot only plastic pellets at low velocity.) By using the correct hold, a handgun can not be taken away from you, unless you are unwilling to actually shoot. A handgun can be more easily kept hidden in the home, and be available for quick action if need be. Criminals do prefer handguns because they can be concealed on the person.

Now about automatics. I am not sure how much you know about guns. Since guns are a technical subject, please bear with me while I make sure that you understand the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic.

Short version: An automatic is a machine gun. Pull the trigger and it keeps shooting until you let off the trigger or it runs out of ammo. They are extremely tightly regulated and have been since 1934. To get one of those takes lots of money and you have to jump through lots of government hoops and allow the BATFE to make unscheduled surprise inspections of your home, or wherever you keep it, to make sure that you have it stored securely. BTW - Criminals don't really like to use automatic weapons for crime. Full-auto (Another term for automatic)burns up lots of ammo in a real hurry with no guarantee of hitting anything. The movies love them because they are exciting on screen, but in real life they are only useful to a well trained person. Because of the extreme expense of them, and because they are difficult to use effectively, difficult to conceal, criminals rarely use them. Nor would I want one for my own home defense. There are some nuances that I didn't cover, but they are important only to another gunnie.

Semi-automatic, often called semi-auto. Fires one and only one shot with each trigger pull. Relax the trigger and then you can shoot again by pulling the trigger. Because handguns have weak hitting power, often the criminals won't go down after the first hit. He may well stay on his feet and in the fight. Even if he goes down, he can still shoot from the ground. So if you are defending yourself or your family with a handgun, you may have to shoot the bad guy a lot, especially if he is on drugs, such a PCP or Meth. You start shooting and keep shooting, rapid fire, until the bad guy is no longer a threat. (No longer a threat can mean anything from "He ran away" to "He's dead.") And there may be more than one burglar, or home invader. So it is entirely possible to needs lots of ammo to put down a threat.

Home Invasions. These are different from burglaries, although some people use the two terms interchangeably. A burglar attempt to enter, and leave, by stealth. He is quite happy is he does not have to confront the resident. Home invasions are just that, invasions by force, like troops hitting a beach in WWII. Typically there are several bad guys, and they get the resident to answer the door. Then they rush inside and take over. They get sadistic pleasure out of the fear they put the resident through, and they often harm the residents. If home invasions are prevalent in an area, residents may begin to hide a semi-auto handgun in every room of the house. If one's area has not been having random home invasion, then the resident may decide to have fewer guns.

The above has been about home defense only. Concealed carry is a bit different, and this post is long enough already. Besides, the court case is about handguns for home-defense.

I hope that I am helping you to understand our view. If you still choose to disagree with us, that is OK, as you are making the effort to understand how we see it. I can't ask for anything more. And I am enjoying answering your questions. And I am also gaining some understanding from you.

BTW - Yes, please send that link on health care. I have been somewhat frustrated by the proposals as I don't think they have gone far enough to solve the problem, but instead are likely to make it worse. But if I start in talking about health care I end up on a soapbox and get my blood pressure up.

[ChicagoSuz219]

165. You should gather all these writings...

...and turn them into an article somewhere. You write very well.

I'm beginning to think that how people feel about guns have a lot to do with where they live. I feel very safe in the City... maybe because there are a lot of people, stores, restaurants, etc. I know city people have the reputation of not caring and that's not my experience. Over the years, I've probably called 911 20x to get someone help (never gun-related... things like heart attacks, epilepsy, lost child, etc.) and people have called for me, as well.

My eyesight is such that I can't even get a driver's license. Wayne LaPierre wouldn't want me to have a gun. Trust me, on this... LOL

I'll send the link to the letter to the editor I sent re: HCR to your inbox.

[YllwFvr]

207. I am going to call BS on this one

"Usually, a person who has a problem with drinking and agression will have already gotten into trouble because of that problem and it will already be illegal for that person to have a gun, or to even touch one"

I know a guy who regularly carries with a valid license to the bar where he gets hammered then routinely hammers others with glee. Its not enough to get his permit or firearm taken away. He's never pulled the gun, but then again he's never been in fear for his life and is more than willing to take his lumps. Most of the time the cops arent even called, though why anyone would refuse to call them when a huge dude picks a fight with every breathing person in the room is beyond me.

Id be out the door with 911 fast.

[oneshooter]

208. I don't know where ya'll are

But in Texas that would get his permit pulled, and he would be facing Felony possesion charges.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[YllwFvr]

211. Is it legal to carry into a bar in texas?

I used to think texas had the best firearm laws. I still think they have the best self defense laws. Its not illegal here in Pennsylvania to have a gun in the bar or be intoxicated while carrying. I think you'd be fried in court for it, but its not illegal by itself.

[oneshooter]

213. No.

Texas law describes a "bar" as an establishment that makes 51% or more of it's total sales in alcohol for on premises consumption. This being said, those establishments are required to post a 51% sign at the entrance. This is to tell CHL holders that entry, while armed, is a felony offense.
It is a Felony offense for a CHL, while armed, to be legally intoxicated. This will be cause to remove the permit. Having a felony means that you will not receive a Texas CHL again.
It is a Felony to CC a firearm in Texas without a valid CHL permit.
There is no OC in Texas, except under certain circumstances. These include, while on your own property, while hunting/fishing, while participating in a sporting event that requires the use of the weapon.

Strangely enough you can carry a fully loaded rifle or shotgun in plain sight down the street, as long as you do not use it in a "menacing"way. You are also allowed to carry a concealed handgun in your vehicle without a CHL, just not concealed on your person.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[YllwFvr]

214. Is "printing"

considered open? I had heard it was. Sucks that the self defense laws are great but the gun laws themselves seem to be a bit behind the times. Its the other way here, lax gun laws but poor self defense laws. You are supposed to retreat if possible in your home unless it puts you in danger. Texas sounds like a dangerous place. For criminals

[oneshooter]

215. You are not supposed to "print"

One section of the law covers "accidential exposure". If the wind blows my cover shirt open and exposes my weapon that is NOT brandishing. Same thing if I am on a ladder and the same happens, again not brandishing. Printing, serious printing is a no no.
I carry a SIG 220 in a IWB holster and have no problem with printing.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[GreenStormCloud]

218. Usually does not mean "always".

Usually means "in most cases". You are like the person who points to some 95 yr-old smoker and says, "See, smoking doesn't harm you."

In Texas, such behavior, even if not intoxicated, would be enough to get his permit yanked.

[YllwFvr]

219. Im just saying

I dont have a problem with drinking and carrying. Getting drunk is a bad idea, having a few with some friends is fine by me. Again, lawyers might have a field day with it if you got into trouble, but I dont believe your rights end at the door to the bars door. Local laws may restrict whatever the people allow to be restricted.

[Caliman73]

85. Been through a couple.

You handle it by hitting the ground and hoping for a lot of missing. Then you hope the police can catch the idiots who did it and take them off the street for a long time. You don't violate the average citizen their right to self defense. Violence is a tragic thing and gun violence is scary and tragic as well, but banning objects because people misuse them is not going to stop people from their anti-social behaviors.

[oneshooter]

90. Been involved in a lot of shooting incidents

Kinda came with my job at the time. Only been hit twice, both times hurt like hell, but I survived.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[ChicagoSuz219]

93. That's good.

Weren't you a cop? I don't have a problem with the police being armed.

Current law in Chicago has been in place for 28 years. Unless you're planning a visit, it shouldn't be a problem for you.

This will play out as more of States/Cities' rights issue than a gun one. We'll have to wait & see...

[oneshooter]

131. No I have never been a "cop"

I did eight years in the Corp,including two tours in RVN and one on the DMZ in Korea, then 20+ years as a security officer overseas.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[cowman]

144. 4 years

as a Navy Seabee, 1 tour in the RVN at a place called Con Thien in the Central Highlands, then a tour in Korea, very tense, also a 6 mos. at Guantanamo, also very tense. Never got hit in Vietnam but came close

[ChicagoSuz219]

153. I thank you for your service. n/t

(That's a serious posting.)

[ChicagoSuz219]

92. The law's been in place for 28 years & hasn't been an issue...

...this will turn out to be more about States/Cities' rights than guns before it's over.

[Euromutt]

114. We can only hope so

See, to my mind so-called "states' rights" (governments at various levels don't have rights; at best, they have powers reserved to them) are means to an end, not an end unto themselves. That end being the preservation of individual rights against overweening federal regulation. Limitations on federal power to dictate the law to states is not intended to give the states (or counties of cities) the authority to infringe upon rights of the individual in a way that the federal government cannot. If civil liberties are to mean anything, they must be protected against all who seek to infringe on them; it's no comfort that the federal government cannot restrict my freedom of speech, impose an officially supported religion, or perform unreasonable searches and seizures of my person or property, if the state, county, city, or school district--let alone any private entity--is legally permitted to do so.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has resisted interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment in the way it was obviously intended from the earliest opportunity, and the current incarnation of the Court seems disinclined to overturn that precedent, wrong-headed as it was and is. We have that wrong-headed precedent to thank for almost a century of Jim Crow laws in the South (as well as other obviously racist measures in the rest of the country); the Fourteenth very obviously meant that blacks (and other ethnic minorities) are citizens to the same extent as whites, and are entitled to all the "privileges and immunities" (i.e. rights) as whites. The Civil Rights Act should have been superfluous; it settled an issue that should have been settled almost a century before with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, were it not for the cowardice and corruption of the Supreme Court at the time, and it is utterly incomprehensible that the current Court, along with all its predecessors, is reluctant to overturn the precedent set in the Slaughterhouse ruling.

[ChicagoSuz219]

117. I'm guessing you're a lawyer... n/t

[Euromutt]

216. Worse; I'm a political science major. (n/t)

[TPaine7]

119. I disagree. It hasn't been an issue for YOU, maybe.

I can say with certainty that there are women in Chicago who have been beaten, raped, and killed who would not have been but for Chicago's unconstitutional laws.

There are children, siblings and husbands who are suffering because of their mothers' sisters' and wives' suffering or death.

There are many Chicagoans who have wanted to exercise their rights as Americans for all 28 years.

With all due respect, your experience is not universal. I hope you never "need" a gun to prevent your or a loved one's injury or death. But I also hope that you one day realize that not looking for trouble and giving the felon what he wants doesn't always work. Sometimes trouble comes looking for you; sometimes the felon wants more than your money; sometimes compliant victims are tortured, raped and killed.

Personally, I think that it's obscene and criminal to insist that victims put their trust in the goodwill of felons. Especially when FBI data shows conclusively that people who resist with a gun are about 1/2 as likely to be injured or robbed.

[ChicagoSuz219]

128. Didn't you get the memo?

I've stopped playing.

[TPaine7]

129. Who's playing?

I'm just attempting a rational exchange of ideas.

You're still talking to other folks; I thought I'd put in my $.02 worth.

[ChicagoSuz219]

130. I've stopped. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

140. When confronted with facts many people often do. Stop playing that is.

[ChicagoSuz219]

146. I'm sure they do...

...I just got bored with the topic.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

163. Maybe, the fact you got schooled on the Constitution had nothing to do with it.

:eyes:

[ChicagoSuz219]

172. Don't know what that means. n/t

[NewMoonTherian]

60. That's a very mature attitude, and you're right.

Others' personal opinions shouldn't matter to us in forming our beliefs. Yours doesn't matter to me, and I hope they strike down the ban. When your life or that of someone close to you has been saved by a personal firearm, then we'll talk. Until then(and, let's face facts, even after), you'll never convince me that gun bans help anyone except violent criminals.

[ChicagoSuz219]

74. I wasn't trying to convince you...

...I was just stating my opinion.

[paulsby]

73. we can talk. i've been shot at, etc.

i've been threatened by a gun. heck, i've been shot at.

i've been in shootings

my best friend was shot and killed. by a scumbag convicted felon.

and i have zero desire to converse with anybody who is so closed minded to say "you will never change my mind on this particular subject".

anybody who says that is simply admitting to being close minded.

so why are you even here?

i am ready to consider new evidence and change my mind on ANY position i hold, from choice (i'm pro choice), to mj legalization (i'm for it), to vouchers (i'm for them), to DADT (i'm for gays openly serving in the military), etc.

why even bother on a discussion forum if you are just hear to IGNORE stuff you disagree with.

because if your mind is closed, that is what you are admitting you will do

no belief i hold is so sacred that i am not willing to consider that i could be wrong

that's the open minded, intelligent position to hold

hth

[ChicagoSuz219]

75. "no belief i hold is so sacred...

...that i am not willing to consider that i could be wrong"

That's your quote. So, are you willing to consider that? ;-)

Seriously, if I had been in as many shootouts as you, I reaaaaaaaally would want to stay as far away as I could from guns & people with guns.

I just don't like being around them. You apparently do. That's what make horseraces.

Can't we just leave it at that?

[paulsby]

88. the difference is i am open minded

iow, my mind can be (and has been ) changed by evidence

i USED to be anti-gun rights

iow, i was against concealed carry (shall issue)

now, i am for it

why?

the evidence changed my mind

you ADMIT you are close minded

it's not that you are anti civil rights (vis a vis ) guns that is disturbing to me

it;'s that you actually admit (i guess i give you point for honesty) that you WON'T change your mind

thus, you are not participating in a discussion

you are merely espousing your prejudices (and by definition, if you won't consider new ideas/evidence, you are PREjudging ), without consideration of facts

there is NO believe i hold that i will not consider contrary evidence of

that;'s called being open minded

many people associate that with liberalism

i don't becausei know WAY too many close minded liberals.

i associate it with true intelligence.

because if your mind is closed to new ideas, intelligence matters naught

[ChicagoSuz219]

94. It's the law here.... has been in effect for 28 years.

I'm law-abiding, what can I tell you?

If, and when, it's overturned then we can discuss whether or not we like it.

And, it's not about all guns. If you want to go shoot Bambi's mother, you have the right to do it... just, please, don't do it in front of me.

[paulsby]

136. nice dodge

that's not the issue. the issue is you said your mind is made. it won't be changed

iow, you are not participating in a discussion. you have prejudged, you are prejudiced, and your mind is closed

why even bother?

my mind is open to new ideas. that's a hallmark of intelligence.

you are honest enough to admit yours isn't

[ChicagoSuz219]

152. I didn't come to this conclusion today...

...over the years, I've thought about it, debated it, whatever... and this is what makes sense to me.

[ChicagoSuz219]

95. PS

Why doesn't your open-mindedness extend to my having the right to voice my own opinion? Just 'cause I don't agree with you, doesn't mean my opinion is any less valid.

You haven't shown me any evidence on the 'wonderfulness' of guns to change my mind.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

97. Who said you couldn't voice your opinion?

[ChicagoSuz219]

104. No one said I couldn't...

...they just jumped all over me when I did.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

120. So being questioned about your opinion infringes on your rights?

[paulsby]

135. please show me where you i said you don't have that right

considering that this is a privately owned forum, your right to speak is limited by the mod's/owners, of course, not me

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

98. He's a cop, kind of hard to stay away from guns and people with guns.

[ChicagoSuz219]

113. I can't find what post you're replying to...

...but I'm sure I didn't say cops couldn't have guns.

[Euromutt]

115. Your post #75

You said to paulsby:

Seriously, if I had been in as many shootouts as you, I reaaaaaaaally would want to stay as far away as I could from guns & people with guns.

Paulsby can't just not stay away from "guns & people with guns" because he's a firearms instructor for his agency, but also because when people commit unlawful acts with firearms, people like paulsby tend to get called in to rectify the situation.

As it happens, I live in the jurisdiction in which paulsby operates, and I cannot adequately express how happy and proud I am to have cops like him serving my community.

[ChicagoSuz219]

116. Well, obviously, I didn't know he was a cop...

...I'm not worried about cops w/guns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

121. So it's not guns, it's common people having guns that you have a problem with?

[ChicagoSuz219]

124. Ya know... you don't need a gun...

...you could just 'talk' someone to death.

I'm done talking about it. Let's see how it plays out in the Courts.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

126. Fortunately need isn't a stipulation of the 2nd Amendment.

[paulsby]

138. ah, the "need canard"

i don't "need" a gun either. it's quite useful though

[ChicagoSuz219]

149. Untrained, unlicensed, unregistered, etc. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

157. So it would be fine if they were licensed, registered and the people were trained?

[ChicagoSuz219]

168. 'More' fine... ;-)

At a minimum, I think that should be required. It's better than having a bunch of wackos running around with guns just 'cause they can.

I still won't buy one... or even accept one as a gift. (I don't wear fur, either. It's just not my thing.)

Here's a question I posed to someone else:

Would you agree that a gun in the hands of someone who's not emotionally or mentally stable - or who has rage or alcohol or drug issues - might not be a good thing?

How does that get regulated?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

176. People adjudicated mentally ill are barred from gun possession.

Without an involuntary commitment or other judicial proceedings it is hard to strip one of constitutional rights.

[ChicagoSuz219]

185. Not much solace there, sorry... I know you tried... ;-) n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

198. Do you have a different solution?

[ChicagoSuz219]

200. LOL... after all this...

...do you really need to ask? ;-)

[Euromutt]

201. For someone who was "done talking" four days ago...

...you sure take your time actually being done talking.

[ChicagoSuz219]

206. I took a nap...

...then answered some people who spoke to me respectfully.

I must say those... you guys are relentless... LOL

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

204. I guess I should have added while respecting the Constitution.

[tortoise1956]

161. Good point

I am also not happy with people owning weapons without having some sort of training in their use. Probably a throwback to my mandated NRA training before I was allowed to even touch a firearm, let alone shoot one. However, that is different from completely banning a class of firearms just because...

BTW, please don't go away forever. I have enjoyed reading your posts for many reasons, not the least of which is that you rationally described your point of vie without resorting to histrionics. To be honest, most posters on this site who oppose handgun ownership are long on rhetoric and short on coherence. You are a refreshing change. Keep it up!

[ChicagoSuz219]

167. Thanks.

Would you agree that a gun in the hands of someone who's not emotionally or mentally stable - or who has rage or alcohol or drug issues - might not be a good thing?

How does that get regulated?

[paulsby]

137. as a cop, i'm not "worried" about non-cops w/guns

iow, yer average ccw'er, who statistics show is quite law abiding.

in 20+ yrs of law enforcement, i've dealt with hundreds of those who have CCW's and i know that they are LESS a risk to my safety, than the average person, let alone a convicted felon who by definition cannot hold a CCW.

i support the right of these people to defend themselves and their loved ones from criminals

i am paid to do so, but it is not solely my authority.

it is the right of every person to defend themselves from criminals

[ChicagoSuz219]

148. They can have rifles, shotguns...

...just not handguns & automatic weapons.

How many ways does someone have to kill someone else?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

156. You are in luck on one of those issues. Automatic weapons are very highly regulated.

There are very few legal automatic weapons in civilian hands.

[ChicagoSuz219]

170. Nice to know. n/t

[paulsby]

159. rifles and shotguns are not practical for concealed carry

automatic weapons are not what we are discussing here, and have been heavily regulated under NFA for decades

hth

cops carry handguns because they are practical

non-cops should have the same right

here in WA state, they do

[ChicagoSuz219]

169. One of the reasons I live here... ;-)

[paulsby]

173. and yet chicago is MUCH less safe than seattle

so while you may FEEL safer not having law abiding people carrying guns in chicago, you ARE safer in seattle, a city where lots of law abiding citizens routinely carry firearms.

facts matter more to me than feelings.

[ChicagoSuz219]

174. I choose not to live my life in fear of things that aren't happening. n/t

[paulsby]

175. ah , the fear canard

how typical.

one doesn't need to be, nor usually is one, in fear, to carry a gun.

that's like saying one carries fire insurance because one is in fear of fire

as a former firefighter, i know a house fire is ExTREMELY unlikely. in many neighborhoods it's FAR more likely tobe confronted with a violent offender than a house fire, but both are exceptionally UNlikely.

both unfortunate events are unlikely. both can have catastrophic results, though

however, in either case, chance favors the prepared man... or woman.

the fear canard. boring

[ChicagoSuz219]

183. You forgot some things:

Bird flu... swine flu... asteroids hitting the planet... earthquakes... tsunamis... terrorists... floods... lightning... mud slides... volcanoes erupting... planes crashing... pirates!!... getting hit by a car/bus/train... botulism... rioting... gangbangers... drug dealers... the ozone layer... second-hand smoke... the return of T.B... polio... smallpox... AIDS... walking pneumonia... regular pneumonia... cancer!!!!... and on & on & on & on & on &... etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

I hope your gun protects you from it all. I think it just gives you a false sense of security.

I choose to spend my heartbeats thinking happy thoughts... :-)

[ChicagoSuz219]

184. You forgot some things:

Bird flu... swine flu... asteroids hitting the planet... earthquakes... tsunamis... terrorists... floods... lightning... mud slides... volcanoes erupting... planes crashing... pirates!!... getting hit by a car/bus/train... botulism... rioting... gangbangers... drug dealers... the ozone layer... second-hand smoke... the return of T.B... polio... smallpox... AIDS... walking pneumonia... regular pneumonia... cancer!!!!... and on & on & on & on & on &... etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

I hope your gun protects you from it all. I think it just gives you a false sense of security.

I choose to spend my heartbeats thinking happy thoughts... :-)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

177. So what exactly are you saying isn't happening?

[ChicagoSuz219]

182. All those worst case scenarios featuring moi...

There are enough real things to deal with without worrying/fantasizing about what's not happening.

[paulsby]

187. crime isn't happening in chicago

wow. learn something new every day.

[ChicagoSuz219]

190. And, you think I can stop it? LOL n/t

[paulsby]

192. no. nor did i say this. do you have the ability to respond w.o creating strawmen

a gun merely gives you a better means to prevent you OR somebody close to you from being victimized.

nobody claimed that you having a gun was going to stop crime.

citizens in WA state can carry firearms (shall issue)

in chicago, they generally cannot

i prefer freedom.

and that's freedom for others. in my case, as a cop i can carry in either jurisdiction.

hth

[ChicagoSuz219]

193. Just curious...

...have you seen any polls regarding how Chicago Cops view this issue? I'd be interested to find out.

[paulsby]

194. so would i

ime, the vast majority of LINE COPS (Iow actual cops, not cop-o-crat administrators) support concealed carry

but i live in a concealed carry jurisdiction, so from experience they see that it works and support it.

i'd be curious to see how cops who work in a crime infested city like chicago that doesn't have CCW permits shall issue think about it.

[ChicagoSuz219]

196. Me2

I'll see if I can find anything out.

[ChicagoSuz219]

197. Hard to find anything that's not totally one-sided...

...in either direction.

Couldn't find anything about cops & gun control except that retired cops are now eligible to carry concealed weapons.

This was a recent article with quotes from both Mayor Daley & Police Supt. Weis re: the current case:

http://www.chicagodefender.com/article-7248-daley-optimistic-city-will-prevail-in-gun-case.html

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

199. Who proposed a worst case scenario about you besides you?

[PavePusher]

178. Crime isn't happening?

In Chicago?!

Ah, the Rapture has arrived.... my calander must be off...

[TPaine7]

180. The gun control reality distortion field strikes again?

[ChicagoSuz219]

181. Sure... why would I want to add to that? n/t

[cowman]

145. So I am

a Firefighter, does that mean I can't own or carry guns when I am off duty, and respectfully, the 2nd amend isn't about hunting, it's about the right to keep and bear arms for defense

[ChicagoSuz219]

150. "a well-regulated militia" n/t

[TPaine7]

158. "a well-regulated militia"

(I understand that you aren't interested in anything I have to say, but I am posting this for others who might want background on the "well regulated militia" and its relevance to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.)

There are at least 4 lines of evidence showing that the "well regulated militia" phrase does not limit the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

1) Interpreting the amendment that way would violate canons of legal interpretation.
2) The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the right is not limited by the phrase in its earliest mention of the right--before the existence of the NRA or Heller
3) Governments exist to secure rights, not to secure only those rights that enhance state security
4) Even if the Second Amendment had originally been intended to protect the rights of the "well regulated militia" instead of what it actually said--"the right of the people"--the Fourteenth Amendment was written to secure to the freed slaves the individual right to keep and bear arms.

A canon of legal interpretation

It is a canon of legal interpretation that if a law, amendment or constitution has a preamble or purpose clause, that clause only limits the operative clause (or clauses) if the operative clause is unclear. This was so in the time of the founding and it is still the case today. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not unclear.

The Supreme Court has demonstrated this understanding in many opinions

Of the twenty-nine U.S. Supreme Court opinions (including Miller) which have quoted the Second Amendment, twenty three contain only a partial quote. This quoting pattern suggests that, generally speaking, Supreme Court justices have not considered the "purpose clause" at the beginning of the Second Amendment to be essential to the meaning of the main clause.

Source: David B Kopel, et. al., Supreme Court Gun Cases, (Phoenix, AZ: Bloomfield Press, 2004), 83.

Governments exist to secure rights

By calling the people's entitlement to keep and bear arms a RIGHT, the Second Amendment shows that there is a deeper and more fundamental reason for the government to respect and protect it:

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.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,...

Government is, as Thomas Paine put it, a necessary evil. Its excuse to exist is that it secures rights. The most fundamental reason that government has to secure "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is that that keeping and bearing arms is a RIGHT and governments are instituted to secure people's rights.


The Fourteenth Amendment

As I showed at the link, the Fourteenth Amendment was written to ensure that all citizens (and especially the freed slaves) had the individual right to keep and bear arms http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x300206#300331

[Bob2bob]

226. Preamble

It is a canon of legal interpretation that if a law, amendment or constitution has a preamble or purpose clause, that clause only limits the operative clause (or clauses) if the operative clause is unclear. This was so in the time of the founding and it is still the case today. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not unclear.

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England: Introduction Of the Nature of Laws in general.

"IF words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context; with which it may be of singular use to compare a word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament."

The Framers construced the Second Amendment with a "proeme, or preamble" to remove any ambiguity. But YOU have declared that the second clause is unambiguous so that YOU can ignore the stated purpose of the amendment. YOU think "bear arms" means "carry guns" unconnected to service in a well regulated militia. OTHERS think "bear arms" means "render military service" in a well regululated militia. Let's look at the "proeme, or preamble" that the Framers put into the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,.."

Solved!

[Hoopla Phil]

243. Seriously? You do not know what the definition of militia or well regulated is?

You REALLY need to research this a little better.

militia - I'll give you a clue; there are two types, the organized and the unorganized.
well regulated - in context of the 2A "regulating" has more to do with equipping the "militia" with the same type of arms and making sure they know how to use them (practice) than it does with keeping arms out of the militia's hands.

You really should read the Heller decision, all the research is already done, YOU but have to read it.

[Bob2bob]

247. Uniformity of arms = "unorganized?"

militia - I'll give you a clue; there are two types, the organized and the unorganized.
well regulated - in context of the 2A "regulating" has more to do with equipping the "militia" with the same type of arms and making sure they know how to use them (practice) than it does with keeping arms out of the militia's hands.

You'll give me a clue? You haven't GOT a clue if you think that "well-regulated" means "unorganized." How does being "unorganized" ensure that the States militia forces have uniformity of arms??????

"That leaving the power to the several States, they would respectively best know the situation and circumstances of their citizens, and the *REGULATIONS* that would be necessary and sufficient to effect a *WELL REGULATED MILITIA* in each -- That we were satisfied the militia had heretofore been as well disciplined, as if they had been under the *REGULATIONS* of Congress..." - Luther Martin

"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." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29.

GOVERNMENT REGULATED.
--------------------------------------

"It is said that Congress should not possess the power of calling out the militia, to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; nor the President have the command of them when called out for such purposes.I believe any gentleman, who possesses military experience, will inform you that men without a uniformity of arms, accoutrements, and discipline, are no more than a mob in a camp; that, in the field, instead of assisting, they interfere with one another." -
James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention

[Hoopla Phil]

249. Ha Ha Ha. Just do a google search on "regulate" and open your mind.

like I said. There are several definitions of "regulate". You have made a willful decision to choose the wrong one. It is NOT Government Regulated.

And yes, regulated in context of the 2A is to insure that the unorganized militia all use the same weapons and equipment and practice with it. No matter how many all caps words you use, you cannot change reality. You are free to not like it and campaign for the repeal of the 2A, but to deny that which is true???

[Bold Lib]

160. Well-regulated - trained/practiced. Equipped with like arms. You may want to

do a little more research on what "well regulated" means in the context of the 2nd Amendment as you seem to believe it means something that it does not.

[ChicagoSuz219]

166. I did. n/t

[Bold Lib]

179. Does that mean you now understand the context and meaning of "well regulated"?

In your previous post you seem to indicate that "well-regulated" meant something other than trained/practiced and equipped with like arms within the context of the 2nd Amendment.

[ChicagoSuz219]

186. I never had a problem with "well-regulated"...

...it's the "militia" part that gives me pause...

[TPaine7]

188. Militia has nothing to do with what the government is forbidden to do

Sure the founders said that a militia was necessary to the security of a free state. The observation that a militia is necessary can neither be obeyed or disobeyed.

The part of the amendment that can be obeyed by the government has nothing to do with the militia: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If the First Amendment said...

An educated electorate, being necessary to the prosperity of a democratic society, the right of the people to keep and read written materials, shall not be infringed.

...we would not logically conclude that only voters were protected in their right to keep and read written materials. No, THE PEOPLE would be protected in their right to keep and read written materials, because voters are taken out of the people. A well educated and informed populace produces well educated and informed voters.

But there is a more fundamental reason that the government should protect THE PEOPLE in their desire to keep and read written materials--keeping and reading written materials is their RIGHT. And the government exists to secure the people's rights (see the Declaration of Independence). So even if there were no elections--if we found a new and better way to select leaders--we would still be entitled to keep and read written materials. And government would still have the duty to protect that RIGHT, at least under American political theory.

[ChicagoSuz219]

189. Aren't there exceptions?

Like the First Amendment doesn't give somebody the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater... unless, of course, it actually is on fire... ;-)

[X_Digger]

191. Prior Restraint v Punishment..

.. ie, you don't have to get a permit to attend a theater on the off chance that you might yell 'FIRE!'.

You're punished after the fact, just as you are for misusing a gun.

[TPaine7]

195. Of course.

Using your speech analogy, I cannot legally

1) Swear falsely in court that I saw you commit murder
2) Conspire verbally or in writing with you to commit a crime
3) Defraud you verbally
4) Disclose state security secrets
5) Scream obscenities during your poetry reading in your rented hall

And I could think of many others. Basically, these all boil down to my using speech to violate another person's rights.

Similarly, I cannot legally

1) Shoot an innocent person
2) Discharge a firearm in the city limits for any non-defensive purpose
3) Wave an unholstered firearm around in the mall
4) Leave a loaded gun on the seesaw at the local playground
5) Point, allude to, brandish or otherwise use a firearm in any way to gain the upper hand or intimidate anyone in any situation where there is no legitimate reason to threaten to use defensive deadly force.

And I could think of others. Basically these all boil down to my using the right to keep and bear arms to violate another person's rights.

No right is absolute, with the possible exception of thought. Basically, I cannot use any right I possess to violate any right you possess. My HAVING free speech does not harm you; my perjury, conspiracy, fraud, treason or disorderly speech could. My KEEPING AND BEARING a gun does not harm you; my shooting you, reckless discharge, reckless handling of a gun, reckless placement of a gun, or attempt at intimidation could.

Your analogy is a sound one.

What some people do--I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard it--is jump directly from "all rights have limits" to "my policy preferences are constitutional." I think when you step through the analogy carefully, it supports both gun rights and gun restrictions that are truly "reasonable."

[Bob2bob]

220. A well regulated militia,... shall not be infringed

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."

Anything that follows THAT will be securing a well regulated militia. It has the same meaning as; "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State,.."

Half of the existing provisions in state constitutions at that time said no more than; "A well regulated militia is the natural/proper defence of a free State," or words similar. The second half of the Second Amendment protects what's in the first half.

[TPaine7]

222. I agree with your premise, but I don't believe it supports your apparent conclusion.

It has the same meaning as; "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State,.."

I agree that that is the meaning of the Second Amendment:

Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This lays out a reason that the right shall not be infringed, NOT THE EXTENT OF THE RIGHT OR THE REASON FOR THE RIGHT'S EXISTENCE--simply the reason the right shall not be infringed. The amendment is saying that the people have the right to keep and bear arms and that that right supports the well-regulated militia. Because of this, the right shall not be infringed.

This is worlds apart from your headline: "A well regulated militia,... shall not be infringed", which totally distorts the meaning of the amendment.

Well informed voters, being necessary to the proper functioning of a representative democracy, the right of the people to keep and read written materials, shall not be infringed.

Would not boil down to "well informed voters,... shall not be infringed." Neither would it mean

1) That only voters would be protected in keeping and reading written materials
2) That only written materials pertaining to candidates, elections, forms of government, politics, policy or the like would be protected
3) That the right to written materials would disappear the instant society used another means of selecting leaders and stopped voting in elections

There is, of course, a deeper reason why government should not infringe on ANY rights--government exists to secure rights. Read the Declaration of Independence.

In American political philosophy, people get their rights from the Creator. Governments are then instituted to secure those rights. (Whether that Creator is God or Nature, it is NOT government; we have rights because we are human beings, not because some men wrote a Constitution.)

Obviously, then, if the government along with its well-regulated militia ceased to exist, people would be back where they started. They would have rights endowed by the Creator, but no government instituted to secure those rights.

To agree with your headline, the Second Amendment would have to read something like this:

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, we hereby grant to militia members the right to keep and bear arms for the sole purpose of preserving the militia.

To quote myself, there are several things wrong with this:

In American philosophy, all people have the same rights. In the anti-gun scheme, government doles out rights as it pleases. In American philosophy, people had their rights before government existed. In the anti-gun scheme, government creates rights. In American philosophy, securing our rights is the reason for government to exist. In the anti-gun scheme, the state's security is the reason our right to arms exists. In American philosophy, all rights must be respected. In the anti-gun scheme, a right that does not serve the state is void.

It is not possible that the Founders intended the theories propagated in their names.

Source: obamaonsecond.com

[Bob2bob]

224. A well regulated Militia,.. shall not be infringed

This lays out a reason that the right shall not be infringed, NOT THE EXTENT OF THE RIGHT OR THE REASON FOR THE RIGHT'S EXISTENCE

No. It DOES give *THE ONLY* reason for the right being protected. You need to pluck any OTHER reason out of the air.

The right extends it's reach ONLY to a collective body and NOT to each individual.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary:
PEOPLE. "A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in it's collective and political capacity.

That's the body that has the right to keep and bear arms for state security.

"Well informed voters, being necessary to the proper functioning of a representative democracy, the right of the people to keep and read written materials, shall not be infringed" would not boil down to "well informed voters,... shall not be infringed."

You lose by default when you turn to these analogies. There wasn't anything about "well informed voters" in any of the existing State Declaration/Bill of Rights, but in half of them there were provisions that said NO more than "A well regulated militia is the natural/proper defence of a free State." They considered it a RIGHT of the people to have a "well regulated militia." That IS the people bearing arms and that's what the Second Amendment protects.

To agree with your headline, the Second Amendment would have to read something like this: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, we hereby grant to militia members the right to keep and bear arms for the sole purpose of preserving the militia."

Who said? They STATED the sole purpose, so they didn't need to use the words "sole purpose." And the holder of the right is NOT the individual "militia members," it's "the people." It means the SAME as it would in "The People of the State of New York vs. Joe Criminal." Just as individuals would be called to serve on the jury, so individuals would be called to serve in the militia, IF ELIGABLE TO SERVE. By the way, when the Founders spoke of those "able to bear arms," they didn't mean "capable of carrying guns," they meant "eligable to render military service."

[X_Digger]

225. The bill of rights does not limit our rights..

It outlines the extent to which the government cannot step over.

Read the preamble to the bill of rights-

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

Now.. abuse of whose powers? The government. If the second amendment protects only the militia, then how could the government abuse itself? That doesn't make logical sense. If this were merely a power of the government, it wouldn't _need_ to exist in the bill of rights, merely the constitution- as it already does (Article II, Section 2 provising the president as the commander in chief and Article II, Section 8, raising, arming, organizing, and disciplining of the militia.)

[Bob2bob]

227. The STATED purpose

If this were merely a power of the government, it wouldn't _need_ to exist in the bill of rights, merely the constitution- as it already does

Strawman. Where have I said that the Second Amendment is about the power of the Federal Government?

Let's have a look at the Founders expressing a desire for further clauses to be added in order to prevent the Federal Government abusing it's powers:

Luther Martin:
“By the next paragraph, Congress is to have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States... For this extraordinary provision, by which the militia, the only defence and protection which the STATE can have for the security of THEIR RIGHTS against arbitrary encroachments of the general government, is taken entirely out of the power of their respective States, and placed under the power of Congress... the proposed system, taking away from the STATES the RIGHT of organizing, arming and disciplining of the militia, the first attempt made by a State to put the militia in a situation to counteract the arbitrary measures of the general government, would be construed into an act of rebellion, or treason; and Congress would instantly march their troops into the State.

George Mason:
“The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless-- by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive *RIGHT* to arm them.. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use… I wish that, in case the general government should neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm and discipline them.”
------------------------------
Commentary AFTER ratification:

Tucker's Blackstone Volume 1 — Appendix Note D

12. Congress has, moreover, power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by congress C. U. S. Art. 1, Sec. 8. The objects of this clause of the constitution... were thought to be dangerous to the state governments... all room for doubt, or uneasiness upon the subject, seems to be completely removed, by the fourth article of amendments to the constitution (The Second Amendment), since ratified, viz. "That a militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and hear arms, shall not be infringed." To which we may add, that the power of arming the militia, not being prohibited to the states, respectively, by the constitution, is, consequently, reserved to them, concurrently with the federal government."

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
§ 1201."..Suppose, then, that congress should refuse to provide for arming or organizing them, the result would be, that the states would be utterly without the means of defence.."
§ 1202. It is difficult fully to comprehend the influence of such objections, urged with much apparent sincerity and earnestness at such an eventful period. The answers then given seem to have been in their structure and reasoning satisfactory and conclusive. But the amendments proposed to the constitution (some of which have been since adopted) show, that the objections were extensively felt, and sedulously cherished. The power of congress over the militia (it was urged) was limited, and concurrent with that of the states.. If congress did not choose to arm, organize, or discipline the militia, there would be an inherent *RIGHT* in the states to do it. All, that the constitution intended, was, to give a power to congress to ensure uniformity, and thereby efficiency. But, if congress refused, or neglected to perform the duty, the states had a perfect concurrent *RIGHT*, and might act upon it to the utmost extent of sovereignty."

[X_Digger]

228. It's inherent in your position..

You can't argue that the right is protected for "state" actors only (militiamen) on the one hand, then say that the prevention of abuse is by that same "state". Non Sequitur (it does not follow.)

As you yourself point out in Blackstone, the power to arm the militia is not a power prohibited from the States, so protecting the States from federal control doesn't make sense.

The right belongs to the people. The same people in the other amendments to the constitution- or are you going to go collectivist on the rest of the bill of rights, too?

[Bob2bob]

230. A well regulated militia,.. shall not be infringed

As you yourself point out in Blackstone, the power to arm the militia is not a power prohibited from the States

Not AFTER the Second Amendment. Look, it's clear from the quotes I presented from Luther Martin and George Mason that THEY thought the people of the States were losing the power/right to maintain their militia forces. The commentary fom Blackstone and Story make it clear that the Second Amendment put it beyond doubt that the people of the States had the right to maintain their militia if Congress neglected them:

"For this extraordinary provision, by which the militia, the only defence and protection which the STATE can have for the security of THEIR RIGHTS against arbitrary encroachments of the general government, is taken entirely out of the power of their respective States, and placed under the power of Congress.. the first attempt made by a STATE to put the militia in a situation to counteract the arbitrary measures of the general government, would be construed into an act of rebellion, or treason.." - Luther Martin.

"Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive *RIGHT* to arm them.. there should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm and discipline them.” - George Mason.

"..all room for doubt, or uneasiness upon the subject, seems to be completely removed, by the fourth article of amendments to the constitution (The Second Amendment).." - Blackstone.

"It is difficult fully to comprehend the influence of such objections, urged with much apparent sincerity and earnestness at such an eventful period.. But the amendments proposed to the constitution (some of which have been since adopted) show, that the objections were extensively felt." - Joseph Story.

[TPaine7]

229. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, your own source, shows that it was not the militia that was protected

No. It DOES give *THE ONLY* reason for the right being protected. You need to pluck any OTHER reason out of the air.

It most assuredly does not "give *THE ONLY* reason for the right being protected", it gives a reason. On what authority do you make that claim?

American Political Philosophy

You totally ignore American political philosophy as explained in the Declaration of Independence. You totally ignore that securing the people's rights is the only excuse government has to exist. By calling keeping and bearing arms a RIGHT, the founders told us that it was already government's duty not to violate it, but to secure it. "Infringe" just drives the point home--showing that suppressing the keeping and bearing of arms is wrong.

Moral Logic

If I tell a child not to steal or he'll be punished, do I therefore say that if he can get away with it all is well? No, if he has any knowledge of me and any moral compass, the fact that he should behave properly is implicit in the word "steal." "Steal" tells him that the action is wrong; getting caught is just *A* reason not to do what is wrong. The fact that it may be the only one reason given explicitly does not imply that it is the only reason by any stretch of the imagination.

The fact that the government should not prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms is implicit in the words "right" and "infringe." This becomes clear if we invert the amendment to mean what many wish it said:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, may be freely infringed--except as it shall affect the militia.

This logical monstrosity serves the purposes of gun control at a high cost. It establishes the principle that government may infringe rights. The singular purpose of such a government is self-preservation, not serving its people. Self-interest is *a* motive for government behaving correctly, just as it is for small children being honest. But there is a deeper purpose as explained in the Declaration, though you stubbornly refuse to admit it.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary

The right extends it's reach ONLY to a collective body and NOT to each individual.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary:
PEOPLE. "A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in it's collective and political capacity.

That's the body that has the right to keep and bear arms for state security.

The people do not have the "right to keep and bear arms for state security"--that's preposterous. Remember, despite your refusal to acknowledge it, the people had their rights before government existed. It is exactly backwards to assert that people have rights in order that they may secure the state; the state has powers in order that it may protect the people's rights. The divine right of kings and fascism are frowned on for a reason.

Furthermore, as Bouvier's Law Dictionary itself tells us:

...The Constitution of the United States, Amendm. art. 2, declares, "that 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." In Kentucky, a statute " to prevent persons from wearing concealed arms," has been declared to be unconstitutional; 2 Litt. R. 90; while in Indiana a similar statute has been holden valid and constitutional....

You may be sure that the difference between these cases was not that a militia wanted to bear concealed arms in one case and an individual wanted to in the other case. Both cases were about *persons* wearing concealed arms. The militia wasn't bringing suit. Hence, even Bouvier's Law Dictionary shows that the right at issue in the Second Amendment was an individual right. Here is the whole entry:

ARMS. Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another. Co. Litt. 161 b, 162 a; Crompt. Just. P. 65; Cunn. Dict. h. t.

2. The Constitution of the United States, Amendm. art. 2, declares, "that 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." In Kentucky, a statute " to prevent persons from wearing concealed arms," has been declared to be unconstitutional; 2 Litt. R. 90; while in Indiana a similar statute has been holden valid and constitutional. 3 Blackf. R. 229. Vide Story, Const. – 1889, 1890 Amer. Citizen, 176; 1 Tuck. Black. App. 300 Rawle on Const. 125.

Source: http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier.htm

The US Supreme Court

The first time the full Supreme Court mentioned RKBA, it called it a "right of person"--hardly consistent with your militia theory.

For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.

Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.

These powers, and others, in relation to rights of person, which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms, denied to the General Government; and the rights of private property have been guarded with equal care. Thus the rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law. And an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United States, and who had committed no offence against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393

The simple fact is that "the people" has a different meaning in the Constitution than "people" has in your source. This is so because, as the Supreme Court explained, the Bill of Rights uses the term "the people" in a unique way:

Held:

...
(b) The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" <494 U.S. 259, 260> refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. Pp. 264-266.

...

"the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the people of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=259

Internal Logic of the Bill of Rights

Let's look at your statements:

The right extends it's reach ONLY to a collective body and NOT to each individual.

It means the SAME as it would in "The People of the State of New York vs. Joe Criminal."

Apply that definition of "the people" elsewhere in the same Bill of Rights:

The right of {the state of New York} to be secure in {its} person{}, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...

I lose

You lose by default when you turn to these analogies.

Analogies are useful ways of thinking and expressing thought. You use an analogy yourself when you compare "the people" in the Second Amendment to "the people" in "The People of the State of New York vs. Joe Criminal." Surely that doesn't mean you lose, does it?

The logic of the amendment, the logic of the Bill of Rights, American political philosophy, basic morality and the Supreme Court all oppose your position (and there is more evidence, but I'm tired). Even Bouvier's Law Dictionary, your own source, shows that the right was individual.

I hope that you will at least consider the evidence calmly. I actually do lose if I spend time writing stuff that never even gets considered. I hope you will help me not lose.

[Bob2bob]

231. My Source Does NOT Prove Me Wrong.

ARMS. Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another. Co. Litt. 161 b, 162 a; Crompt. Just. P. 65; Cunn. Dict. h. t.

2. The Constitution of the United States, Amendm. art. 2, declares, "that 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." In Kentucky, a statute " to prevent persons from wearing concealed arms," has been declared to be unconstitutional; 2 Litt. R. 90;

That's Bliss v. Commonwealth. In that case, the statute was found to violate the STATE Constitution, not the Second Amendment.

"In argument the judgment was assailed by the counsel of Bliss, exclusively on the ground of the act, on which the indictment is founded, being in conflict with the twenty-third section of the tenth article of the constitution of this state. That section provides, "that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned."

[TPaine7]

235. I think it does.

Two reasons:

First, there were two cases, and you only addressed one. Even the case where the law forbidding the carrying of *concealed* weapons was found constitutional makes my point. If the Second Amendment protects the rights of militias, states of the union, or collectives, then an individual laying claim to that right as an individual would be a joke, not a serious legal case to be cited. It would be as if I went before a court and said that I have the right to command troops because the president is the commander-in-chief. I would be laughed out of court.

Second, even if that is Bliss v. Commonwealth and if you quote your source correctly, and if your source is unbiased and authoritative (none of which I have verified yet, links would be helpful), my point stands. Because even if Bouvier missed the fine distinction between state and federal constitutions in this particular case, he still linked the United States Second Amendment to the *individual* carrying of arms. He understood the personal carrying of arms as an individual right protected by the Second Amendment. That is what I rely on him for.

PS: I would guess that in the other case (the one you didn't address), the main point was that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, not the right to bear concealed arms. In the founding era, concealed arms were frowned upon, and looked upon as the tactical preference of assassins and other criminals.

[Bob2bob]

239. Watch My Lips

If the Second Amendment protects the rights of militias, states of the union, or collectives, then an individual laying claim to that right as an individual would be a joke, not a serious legal case to be cited.

Bliss didn't claim that the statute violated the Second Amendment. He claimed it violated an article in the STATE Constitution:

"...the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned."


Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)

We are aware that the court of appeals of Kentucky, in the case of Bliss v. The Commonwealth, 2 Littell, 90, has decided that an act of their legislature, similar to the one now underconsideration, is unconstitutional and void. We have great respect for the court, by whom that decision was made, but we cannot concur in their reasoning.

We think the view of the subject which the opinion of the court in that case takes is far too limited for a just construction of the meaning of the clause of the constitution they had under consideration.

It is not precisely in the words of our constitution, nevertheless it is of the same general import. The words are, that "the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of
themselves and the state shall not be questioned."

In the former part of this opinion we have recurred to the circumstances under which a similar provision was adopted in England, and have thence deduced the reason of its adoption, and consequently have seen the object in view when the right to keep and bear arms was secured. All these considerations are left out of view in the case referred to, and the court confine themselves entirely to the consideration of the distinction between a law prohibiting the right, and a law merely regulating the manner in which arms may be worn. They say there can be no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed weapons and one prohibiting the wearing them openly.

We think there is a manifest distinction. In the nature of things, if they were not allowed to bear arms openly, they could not bear them in their defence of the state at all. To bear arms in defence of the state is to employ them in war, as arms are usually employed by civilized nations. The arms, consisting of swords, muskets, rifles, etc., must necessarily be borne openly; so that a prohibition to bear them openly would be a denial of the right altogether.

And, as in their constitution the right to bear arms in defence of themselves is coupled with the right to bear them in defence of the state, we must understand the expressions as meaning the same thing, and as relating to public, and not private, to the common, and not the individual, defence.

But a prohibition to wear a spear concealed in a cane would in no degree circumscribe the right to bear arms in the defence of the state; for this weapon could in no degree contribute to its defence, and would be worse than useless in an army. And, if, as is above suggested, the wearing arms in defence of the citizens is taken to mean the common defence, the same observations apply.

To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already
been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.

[TPaine7]

240. "Bliss didn't claim that the statute violated the Second Amendment."

Ok. But why are you talking about Bliss?

The quote you're addressing was referring to the other case--the case that isn't Bliss--the case where the law forbidding concealed carry was found constitutional.

[Bob2bob]

232. "The people" contrasts with "person"

Held:

...
(b) The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person"

Good night, sir.

[GreenStormCloud]

233. Your argument is moot. Heller has already decided that. It is now settled law.

And it will soon be incorporated.

[TPaine7]

234. You must be sleepy...

Otherwise you would not make such an argument.

Yes, "the people" contrasts with "person." The Court is drawing a sophisticated distinction, as is evident in paragraphs b) and c) of the holding:

(b) The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" <494 U.S. 259, 260> refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. Pp. 264-266.

(c) The Fourth Amendment's drafting history shows that its purpose was to protect the people of the United States against arbitrary action by their own Government and not to restrain the Federal Government's actions against aliens outside United States territory. Nor is there any indication that the Amendment was understood by the Framers' contemporaries to apply to United States activities directed against aliens in foreign territory or in international waters. Pp. 266-268.

According to the Court, "the people" does not include all "persons" but only that "class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community." Unfortunately, that is not the point you have been making.

Neither "the people" or "persons" refer to anything like "the militia", "the state of New York" or a "collective" of any sort. Legitimate Fourth Amendment claims are made regularly by individual citizens. The issues at stake involve the rights of those individual citizens as they act privately in their individual capacities, not as members of militias, as collectives, or as states of the union.

The logic of the Court shows conclusively that "the people" does not mean what you think it does.

Rest well, my friend. And welcome. I commend you for making arguments that have nothing to do with your opponent's personal physical attributes, alleged lack of courage or the like.

[Bob2bob]

238. We The People

According to the Court, "the people" does not include all "persons" but only that "class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community." Unfortunately, that is not the point you have been making.

Which idividual "class" do you belong to?

NOWHERE in this case does the court say that "the people" means each U.S. citizen personally. They're saying the opposite.

Neither "the people" or "persons" refer to anything like "the militia", "the state of New York" or a "collective" of any sort.

You're babbling.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary:
PEOPLE. "A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in it's collective and political capacity."

What's the difference between:

a. "The people of New York vs. Joe Criminal," and
b. "The State of New York vs. Joe Criminal" ?

Same thing.

When a man is taken out of society and put in prison, he no longer belongs to "the people" class. He retains all his personal personal rights, but he has NO right to assemble to petition the government, NO right to be free from searches, and NO right to keep and bear arms for the security of the State.

[TPaine7]

241. You are totally missing the point.

You have established that “people” as a legal term means, at least most of the time, a collective.

You provided an old and respected legal dictionary supporting your point:

Bouvier's Law Dictionary:
PEOPLE. "A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in it's collective and political capacity."

You gave a very strong example in your post 237:

Massachusettes Declaration of Rights.

VII.--Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; Therefore the people alone have an incontestible, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.

VIII.--In order to prevent those, who are vested with authority, from becoming oppressors, the people have the right, at such periods and in such manner as they shall establish by their frame of government, to cause their public officers to return to private life; and to fill up vacant places by certain and regular elections and appointments.

XXIX. "..It is therefore not only the best policy, but for the security of the rights of the people, *AND* of every citizen, that the judges of the supreme judicial court should hold their offices as long as they behave themselves well.."

You could easily have given another excellent example from the Declaration of Independence, where the founders said that “the People” are entitled “to alter or to abolish” the government “and to institute new Government” as they see fit.

I agree with you that this does not mean that I am personally entitled to alter or abolish our government and set up a new one as I see fit.

Let me be clear. I concede your point that as a general rule in legal texts and documents, “the people” or “people” is a collective term.

But that does not end the discussion, nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with the meaning of "the people" in the Second Amendment.

In response to your valid, general point, I made several points. Let’s concentrate on three of them:

First, Bouvier's Law Dictionary itself disagrees with your application of this general rule to the Second Amendment by showing that the Second Amendment was an exception to this general rule, as far as Bouvier understood it. Bouvier applied the Second Amendment to the personal, private, individual carrying of arms.

Second, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. It calls the term “the people” as used in the Bill of Rights and in some of the other places in the Constitution a “term of art” meaning that it has a peculiar meaning there—a meaning different from the standard meaning, such as one might find in Bouvier's Law Dictionary or in the Massachusettes Declaration of Rights. The Supreme Court says that “the people” as protected by the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments are the same. All of these amendments apply to individuals acting in their private lives on their own behalf. Free speech, religion, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and all the other “rights of the people” in the Bill of Rights are personal, individual rights.

Third, the internal logic of the Bill of Rights disagrees with you. Your understanding would have the founders asserting the right of the state of New York to be secure in its person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures—utter nonsense.

These and other lines of argument show that in the Second Amendment (as well as in the Bill of Rights generally), “the people” means those individuals who are part of that "class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community." It does not mean the class of people considered only as a group; it means each individual in the class, considered as an individual human being, acting individually, personally, and on her own behalf. That is why an individual person, acting alone and on her own personal account can assert in any US court the right to be personally, individually free from unreasonable searches and seizures or her personal, individual, non-collective right to free speech.

If you told a person from another country what “stealing” meant in English, and expressed contempt for people who stole, you could find yourself in a position similar to mine. If a friend came up and congratulated you on all your stolen bases this season, giving you a high five, the foreigner would be justified in calling you on your inconsistency. Until you explained that “stealing” a base was special terminology without the moral dimension usually associated with “stealing”--kind of a baseball “term of art.”

If, after your explanation, the foreigner kept repeating your words that “stealing is wrong,” it would indicate either a misunderstanding or a stubborn refusal to acknowledge baseball’s special use of the term “steal.”

Similarly, your repetition of the quotations from Bouvier's Law Dictionary and the Massachusettes Declaration of Rights show either a misunderstanding or a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the Bill of Right’s special use of the term “the people.”

[Bob2bob]

269. More bull from TPaine7

Your understanding would have the founders asserting the right of the state of New York to be secure in its person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures—utter nonsense.

Wrong, again. My understanding would have the Founders asserting the right of "THE PEOPLE" of the State of New York.

[PavePusher]

236. In the 10th Amendment...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The construction draws a clear seperation between the people (i.e. individuals) and the State (a political/legal collective construct). Somehow I doubt that "the people" had multiple meanings, and meant different things in each amendment it occurs in.


Anyway, even if the Second did not protect an individual right (and I can't for the life of me see how it wouldn't), it would certainly be covered by the 10th and the 9th: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That pesky phrase again.


Oh wait, another... The 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons...", hardly interpretable as a collective.


Anyway, I'm calling the game, got some good 3-buck Chuck Shiraz to down. As a person. Cheers!

[Bob2bob]

237. "The people" delegate powers, not individuals.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As an individual in your State, what powers do you reserve? The powers delegated to Congress were delegated by "the people" in their COLLECTIVE capacity and that's how they're retained. Here's the body that delegated and reserved powers:

PEOPLE. "A state; as, THE PEOPLE of the state of New York; a nation in it's COLLECTIVE and political capacity."

Also, have a look at this:

Massachusettes Declaration of Rights.
IV. "The people of this Commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America, in Congress assembled."

That's a "SOLE" and "EXCLUSIVE" right of ONE collective body. It CAN'T be the "sole and exclusive" right of millions of citizens individualy. As this provision shows, it's that collective body that retains rights and reserves powers in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Somehow I doubt that "the people" had multiple meanings, and meant different things in each amendment it occurs in.

You're right. But I've just proven that "the people" in the 9th and 10th Amendments is a collective body. Do the following provisions protect personal rights?
----------------------------------
Massachusettes Declaration of Rights.

VII.--Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; Therefore the people alone have an incontestible, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.

VIII.--In order to prevent those, who are vested with authority, from becoming oppressors, the people have the right, at such periods and in such manner as they shall establish by their frame of government, to cause their public officers to return to private life; and to fill up vacant places by certain and regular elections and appointments.

XXIX. "..It is therefore not only the best policy, but for the security of the rights of the people, *AND* of every citizen, that the judges of the supreme judicial court should hold their offices as long as they behave themselves well.."
-------------------------------
Virginia Declaration of Rights.

III That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
----------------------------
PENNSYLVANIA DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.

III. That the people of this State have the sole, exclusive and inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same.

V. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community; and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family, or soft of men, who are a part only of that community, And that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish government in such manner as shall be by that community judged most conducive to the public weal.

VI. That those who are employed in the legislative and executive business of the State, may be restrained from oppression, the people have right, at such periods as they may think proper, to reduce their public officers to a private station, and supply the vacancies by certain and regular elections.
------------
VERMONT DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS.

V. That the people of this State, by their legal representatives, have the sole, exclusive and inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same.

VII. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community, and not for the particular emolumentor advantage of any single man, family, or set of men, who are a part only of that community; and that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right, to reform or alter government, in such a manner as shall be, bythat community, judged most conducive to the public weal.

The 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons...", hardly interpretable as a collective.

UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ

"The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures..."

"..The Fourth Amendment provides: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to "the people."

"...The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the people of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people."

]]

CONTINUED
"...See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community
--------------------------------------

So, "the people..contrasts with.. person." Hardly interpretable personaly.

So, "the people" is a reference to a "CLASS" of persons. Which individual "class" do you belong to?

Basically, this court is saying that "the people" means "the people of the U.S." And remember, in Heller, Scalia himself said that "We The People" in the preamble was the people collectively.

[PavePusher]

242. Only lawyers and judges can screw stuff up this badly.

No offense intended if you are in one of those catagories.

The law is an ass.

[TPaine7]

245. "As an individual in your State, what powers do you reserve?"

The list would be infinite. First, let us establish what a "power" is:

POWER. This is either inherent or derivative. The former is the right, ability, or faculty of doing something, without receiving that right, ability, or faculty from another....

Source: http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier.htm

So, considering only inherent, unenumerated powers, let's try to list the powers an ordinary individual has. Individuals have "the right, ability, or faculty of doing" the following, "without receiving that right, ability, or faculty from another":

1) Choosing a career
2) Selecting who to date or marry (or who to attempt to date or marry!)
3) Selecting what house to buy out of those they can pay for
4) Selecting what car to buy out of those they can pay for
5) Deciding whether to take yoga class
6) Deciding whether to cross their legs
7) Deciding what they will wear
8) Deciding what to name their children
9) Selecting a vacation destination

....

The list is infinite.

ALL powers that are not the legitimate powers of the federal or state government belong to the people.

What's your point?

But I've just proven that "the people" in the 9th and 10th Amendments is a collective body.

Not even close. Ordinary people exercise their retained powers every minute of every day. "The people" in the Tenth Amendment has the exact same meaning as "the people" in the Fourth Amendment. In each case, it applies to individual persons acting privately on their own accounts and under their own authority to their own personal and private ends. The Supreme Court's exegesis in US v. Verdugo-Urquidez was quite consistent on this point. Their argument holds together.

You are attempting to shoehorn your collective rights idea into language and logic that will not accept it.

[Bob2bob]

246. "The powers of individuals not delegated to the United States by the Constitution?"

let's try to list the powers an ordinary individual has. Individuals have "the right, ability, or faculty of doing" the following, "without receiving that right, ability, or faculty from another":

1) Choosing a career
2) Selecting who to date or marry (or who to attempt to date or marry!)
3) Selecting what house to buy out of those they can pay for
4) Selecting what car to buy out of those they can pay for
5) Deciding whether to take yoga class
6) Deciding whether to cross their legs
7) Deciding what they will wear
8) Deciding what to name their children
9) Selecting a vacation destination

You've COMPLETELY ignored the point I made when I said that "the people" in their COLLECTIVE capacity delegated those powers to Congress, and THAT'S how they're retained. They're refering to POLITICAL powers being retained.

Does the following look right to you?:

"The powers to "TAKE A YOGA CLASS" and "SELECT WHO TO DATE" not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people?"

"The people" in the Tenth Amendment has the exact same meaning as "the people" in the Fourth Amendment.

As I've just shown, "the people" in the Tenth Amendment is a collective BODY with political powers.

The problem you have is you don't realize that collective rights differ IN THEIR APPLICATION. The following are examples of COLLECTIVE rights which all differ in their application:


Massachusettes Declaration of Rights.

IV.--The people of this Commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America, in Congress assembled. (See 9th and 10th Amendments.)

XVII.--The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as in time of peace armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

XIX.--The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble to consult upon the common good; give instructions to their representatives; and to request of the legislative body, by the way of addresses, petitions, or remonstrances, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer.

When the people of the State keep and bear arms for the common defence, they do it with the States well regulated militia. If eligable to serve, individual citizens would be called to render military service. On the other hand, individual citizens belonging to the SAME collective body to not need to be an able bodied male between the ages 16 - 45 years of age to "assemble to consult upon the common good; give instructions to their representatives." The SAME is true of "the people" in the 4th Amendment.

[TPaine7]

251. I wasn't trying to evade your point

You've COMPLETELY ignored the point I made when I said that "the people" in their COLLECTIVE capacity delegated those powers to Congress, and THAT'S how they're retained.

You're correct, I did ignore that. I saw it as a bald assertion, but it was never my intention to dodge or evade anything, so I sincerely regret ignoring it.

Your point still is, as far as I can tell, a bald, unsupported assertion. I see no reason whatsoever to assume that because powers are granted by the people as a collective that they are retained by the people as a collective. On the contrary, I see strong logical reasons to conclude the opposite. Here are two quick examples.

First, the government has the authority to establish speed limits for public safety. "Government" can mean either federal government (as in the District of Columbia or on military bases or in national parks, etc.) or the state or local government. Let us say, for the sake of discussion, that this is a legitimate authority granted to the federal government by the people COLLECTIVELY. Let us further say that the government exercises this power over a national federal area in a remote desert area. The Federal government exercises its delegated power and sets the speed limit at 75 mph.

Now let us say that the people had not delegated the power to the federal government to set speed limits in remote federal areas. That would mean that the people would retain the power to decide how fast to drive on roads in that remote federal area. If you were driving cross country on an interstate highway, and passed through that federal area, you alone, as a single individual, acting on your own behalf, under your own authority, for your own personal reasons would decide how fast to drive. The power to decide the speed on that road would be reserved by the people, but there would be nothing collective about it.

Second, though I could multiply examples like the one above, I will use a stronger one, from history.

On on January 16, 1919, the people of the Unites States of America COLLECTIVELY granted to the federal government the power to prohibit liquor:

Section 1.
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.
The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Link: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

On December 5, 1933, the people of the United States of America COLLECTIVELY recalled from the federal government the power to prohibit liquor:

Section 1.
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Link: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

The power to ban liquor is no longer delegated to the United States by the Constitution. The power to ban liquor is not prohibited to the states by the Constitution. Therefore, according to the Tenth Amendment, the power to forbid (or allow) liquor is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

How does that work? Well, some states grant to their political subdivisions the power to forbid liquor. In those states, there may be--for example--dry counties and counties where liquor is legal. That is the exercise of the power reserved by the state, exercised through its political subdivision.

What of the exercise of the power when the states do not reserve the power to ban liquor to themselves or to their subdivisions? The power to set alcohol consumption policy is then reserved to the people. In such cases, who decides whether to pick up a six pack of beer on the way home or to have a glass of wine with dinner at a restaurant? It is the individual, acting on his own behalf, for his own reasons, under his own authority. This is what it means for the power to set liquor policy to be reserved to the people.

Clearly, while powers are granted COLLECTIVELY, and while powers are even withdrawn COLLECTIVELY, powers--at least those powers reserved to the people--are exercised INDIVIDUALLY, by private people acting on their own authority and for their own motives.

Does the following look right to you?:

"The powers to "TAKE A YOGA CLASS" and "SELECT WHO TO DATE" not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people?"

Yes, legally and logically, that makes perfect sense. My problems with it have to do with style and mathematics. The subject selection seems arbitrary and capricious, and it seems to imply that in all other areas of the individual's life the United States may freely intrude. If I were writing a constitution, and if I set out to solve that apparent implication--and I would, because government tends to expand to fill any space available with the faintest of excuses--I would have only two options:

1) Spend the remainder of my life attempting to write a comprehensive list of the powers of individual humans that are off limits to the federal government--and die with the number of powers still unwritten exactly as long as when I had started (that follows from the definition of infinity)
2) Write something like the following:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That was actually the framers choice. The set out to catalog SOME of the important areas of personal powers (or rights, or freedoms, or liberties...) and were left with the implication that the federal government could interfere in any other aspect of an individual's life. The Tenth Amendment was intended to clear up that issue.

As I've just shown, "the people" in the Tenth Amendment is a collective BODY with political powers.

I disagree for reasons that should be clear by now.

The problem you have is you don't realize that collective rights differ IN THEIR APPLICATION. The following are examples of COLLECTIVE rights which all differ in their application:


Massachusettes Declaration of Rights.

IV.--The people of this Commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America, in Congress assembled. (See 9th and 10th Amendments.)

XVII.--The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as in time of peace armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

XIX.--The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble to consult upon the common good; give instructions to their representatives; and to request of the legislative body, by the way of addresses, petitions, or remonstrances, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer.

When the people of the State keep and bear arms for the common defence, they do it with the States well regulated militia. If eligable to serve, individual citizens would be called to render military service. On the other hand, individual citizens belonging to the SAME collective body to not need to be an able bodied male between the ages 16 - 45 years of age to "assemble to consult upon the common good; give instructions to their representatives." The SAME is true of "the people" in the 4th Amendment.

I don't know what you mean by saying that "collective rights differ IN THEIR APPLICATION" so I can't answer that point.

I will say, however, that you seem to be still (unconsciously perhaps) conflating "the people" as usually used in legal texts with "the people" as used as a term of art in the Bill of Rights. The fact that Massachusetts referred to the people's right "to keep and to bear arms for the common defence", the fact (if true, I am assuming your intellectual honesty and knowledge) that Massachusetts did NOT specify an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the fact that Massachusetts used the term "the people" in a totally different way than the framers of the Bill of Rights used the term IS NOT RELEVANT to the exegesis, meaning or enforcement of the Second Amendment.

[Bob2bob]

252. "All power is inherent in the people."

What of the exercise of the power when the states do not reserve the power to ban liquor to themselves or to their subdivisions?

The States *DO* retain the power if it's not delegated to Congress. You can't say - what if "the States do not reserve the power" when they DO. If the people of the State chose to exercise their reserved power to ban liquor, individuals DON'T have the reserved power to do otherwise.

The power to set alcohol consumption policy is then reserved to the people

"The people" is a collective body with political powers.

How many of the Founders said "all power is inherent in the people?" They weren't referring to individuals.

...you seem to be still conflating "the people" as usually used in legal texts with "the people" as used as a term of art in the Bill of Rights

The texts of both state constitutions AND and the U.S. Constitution are the texts of legal documents.

..the fact that Massachusetts used the term "the people" in a totally different way than the framers of the Bill of Rights used the term IS NOT RELEVANT to the exegesis, meaning or enforcement of the Second Amendment.

So far, we've only got your unsubstantiated opinion that the Framers intended "the people" to mean the opposite in the U.S. BoR than they meant it in their own State BoR.

[TPaine7]

254. Sigh,

The States *DO* retain the power if it's not delegated to Congress. You can't say - what if "the States do not reserve the power" when they DO. If the people of the State chose to exercise their reserved power to ban liquor, individuals DON'T have the reserved power to do otherwise.

If you're right, the Constitution is wrong. It should be rewritten to better agree with your collective rights militia theory:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

Whatever it takes to arrive at the "right" position on the Second Amendment, I guess.

"The people" is a collective body with political powers.

You keep saying "political powers" as if you think it helps your case. If the government assigns a maximum speed to a section of highway on federal property, it is exercising POLITICAL power. If it doesn't and you set your own speed--as in an autobahn--the power to set speed is reserved to the people individually. Is it still political power when it is exercised by an individual? Set your own definition of "political"--I couldn't care less. Whether it is "political" power or not when individuals decide how fast to drive (or whether to drink), it is obviously still part of "ALL POWER."

Pretending that "all power" means "political power" doesn't fly. Your equations

"all power" = "political power"

and

"political power" = "collective power"

are a transparent attempt to twist the words "all power" into meaning what you want them to.

How many of the Founders said "all power is inherent in the people?" They weren't referring to individuals.

Really?

Our Revolution commenced on more favorable ground. It presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those of nature, and found them engraved on our hearts. Yet we did not avail ourselves of all the advantages of our position. We had never been permitted to exercise self-government. When forced to assume it, we were novices in its science. Its principles and forms had entered little into our former education. We established however some, although not all its important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.

Source: http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl278.htm

You seem incapable of understanding the definition of "all." Jefferson obviously did.

"All power" includes COLLECTIVE and INDIVIDUAL power. By trying to shoehorn the language of the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the founders into your collective rights idea, you end up equating "all" with "political" and insisting that freedom of PERSON, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press are all collective rights just so you can maintain your theory that keeping and bearing arms is collective right.

So far, we've only got your unsubstantiated opinion that the Framers intended "the people" to mean the opposite in the U.S. BoR than they meant it in their own State BoR.

That is a blatant and intentional falsehood. My position on what the framers intended "the people" to mean in the Bill of Rights is anything but unsubstantiated.

As I showed in post 229, the Supreme Court said the first time they addressed the Second Amendment that it protected a "right of person"--a personal right. I showed that your own source, Bouvier's Law Dictionary, understood the Second Amendment as applying to a PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms. After some flailing and misdirection you stopped trying to refute that obvious fact.

I showed that the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez said that “the people” as protected by the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments are the same. All of these amendments apply to individuals acting in their private lives on their own behalf. Now free speech, religion, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and all the other “rights of the people” in the Bill of Rights are personal, individual rights, as you well know. But instead of being honest enough to admit that and fold, you grasped at the straw that

"The people" contrasts with "person"

Yes, these terms contrast in the Supreme Court's sophisticated argument. This does nothing to detract from the fact that the case itself was all about an INDIVIDUAL, not a COLLECTIVE. The INDIVIDUAL did not fit into the covered class, according to the Court.

Beyond that, I demonstrated that the internal logic of the Bill of Rights shows that the rights protected are individual—at least it shows it to anyone not trying to protect a failed sophistry.

So to say that “we've only got your unsubstantiated opinion” on the obvious fact that “the people” in the Bill of Rights does not mean some sort of collective is a blatantly and intentionally untruth. You may be under the influence of the gun control reality distortion field, you may be desperate to prove the “collective rights” sophistry, but I refuse to believe that you are too stupid to see that I have established my point several time over.

[Bob2bob]

261. Which individual "class" do you belong to?

"The people" contrasts with "person"


This does nothing to detract from the fact that the case itself was all about an INDIVIDUAL, not a COLLECTIVE. The INDIVIDUAL did not fit into the covered class, according to the Court.

He didn't belong to the collective body/"class of citizens" of "the people," so he had no Fourth Amendment protection. But as an individual, he had the right to his trial.

Which individual "class" do you belong to?

[Bob2bob]

263. YOU'RE wrong

If you're right, the Constitution is wrong.

Whatever.

[Bob2bob]

265. Get busy re-writing.

1. I explained how "the people" in the Tenth Amendment is a collective body retaining political powers.

2. You attempted to dismiss this by claiming that individuals retain the power to buy liquor. (?????)

3. I explained that if the people of the States retained the power to ban the sale of liquor, individuals don't retain power to do otherwise.

4. You then declared that, if I'm right, "the Constitution is wrong" and "should be rewritten to better agree with your collective rights" theory.

It isn't ME who needs to rewrite anything, is it? I've PROVEN that "the people" in the Tenth Amendment is a collective body.

After I posted several provisions from several state constitutions which showed that "the people" was reference to a collective body, you said: "..as a general rule in legal texts and documents, “the people” or “people” is a collective term."

Is there any good reason why "the people" in the Ninth Amendment isn't a reference to a collective body retaining collective rights?

9th Amendment
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

[Bob2bob]

266. "All power" is inherent in the collective body of "the people."

The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen;

Only what you see above is a reference to "power." NONE of the above can be exercised by individuals acting alone. All power is inherent in the collective BODY of "the people." Individuals vote, but the collective BODY of the people "elect" their executive and legislature and run the judicial proccess.

The constitutions of most of our States assert.. that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed

That's, the right and duty of the collective body of "the people" to be at all times armed.

The constitutions of most of our States assert.. that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.

Most State Constitutions did NOT assert that "the people" were entitled to those freadoms. If any State DID use "the people" when protecting those freedoms, it only extended it's reach to the citizens belonging to the collective body of "the people" of that State, not to every individual.

[Name removed]

267. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bob2bob]

268. More crap from TPaine7

Now free speech, religion,.. and all the other “rights of the people” in the Bill of Rights..

Those rights do NOT extend their reach only to "the people" class in the Bill of Rights, as you claim here.

[Bob2bob]

270. "CLASS, CLASS, CLASS of persons."

I showed that the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez said that “the people” as protected by the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments are the same.

Yes, the same collective body or "class."

You COMPLETELLY distort what the court ACTUALLY said when you assert that...

All of these amendments apply to individuals

...because they said NO such thing.

[TPaine7]

271. To whom it may concern (Lest anyone be deceived)

Here is the Supreme Court on the Fourth Amendment:

Held: Any search that may have occurred did not violate respondents' Fourth Amendment rights. The state courts' analysis of respondents' expectation of privacy under the rubric of "standing" doctrine was expressly rejected in Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128, 140 . Rather, to claim Fourth Amendment protection, a defendant must demonstrate that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched, and that his expectation is reasonable. Id., at 143-144, n. 12. The Fourth Amendment protects PERSONS against unreasonable searches of "their persons houses," and thus indicates that it is a PERSONAL RIGHT that MUST BE INVOKED BY AN INDIVIDUAL. But the extent to which the Amendment protects PEOPLE may depend upon where those people are. While an overnight guest may have a legitimate expectation of privacy in someone else's home, see Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U. S. 91, 98-99 , one who is merely present with the consent of the householder may not, see Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 259 .
Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/525/83.html

Compare and contrast:

So, "the people..contrasts with.. person." Hardly interpretable personaly. (post 237)

NOWHERE in this case does the court say that "the people" means each U.S. citizen personally. They're saying the opposite. (post 238)

Now if they're saying THE OPPOSITE of "the people" meaning "each U.S. citizen personally" they are saying that it DOES NOT MEAN each U.S. citizen personally.

I actually understood what the Supreme Court was saying, but sometimes they put in in plain enough terms that it's harder to spin. I doubt this will have any weight with determined sophists, but it may help someone on the fence.

[Bob2bob]

277. Which individual "class" do you belong to, for crying out loud?

Here is the Supreme Court on the Fourth Amendment:

It's the supreme Court of MINNESOTA, Foxy.

The Fourth Amendment protects persons..

"The right of THE PEOPLE..."

...and thus indicates that it is a personal right that must be invoked by an individual.

Was Urquidez a person and an individual? Yes.
Did Urquidez have Fourth Amendment protection? No.
Why not? Because the Fourth Amendment "extends it's reach only to the people" "class"
Is the right invoked by individuals belonging to the collective body that holds the right? Yes. But, as I've already demonstrated, collective rights differ in their application.

Although "the people" is a collective body, it hasn't got two arms, two legs, one heartbeat and live in one house free from unreasonable searches. It OBVIOUSLY consists of individuals, and the Fourth Amendment is invoked by the individuals belonging to the collective body which holds the right.

On the other hand, the right of this collective body to keep and bear arms for State security does NOT need to be invoked by every individual. The collective body holds the right, and if eligable to serve (able-bodied males aged 16 - 45), individuals would be enlisted. Because this excludes the disabled and the elderly(besides blacks and women), could it be said that "the people" were NOT bearing arms for State security? Of course not, because "the people" would STILL be keeping and bearing arms for State security in their COLLECTIVE capacity.

[TPaine7]

278. "It's the supreme Court of MINNESOTA, Foxy."

Poor Bob. He's the only guy to ever call me foxy, to my memory. He's free to enjoy his own lifestyle, of course. I would never challenge his (collective?) rights. But he's barking up the wrong tree. (Hey, why get that part right and spoil a perfect record?)

As I said already in another post, literacy suffers under the gun control reality distortion field. Bob is an extreme case.

Held: Any search that may have occurred did not violate respondents' Fourth Amendment rights. The state courts' analysis of respondents' expectation of privacy under the rubric of "standing" doctrine was expressly rejected in Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128, 140 . Rather, to claim Fourth Amendment protection, a defendant must demonstrate that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched, and that his expectation is reasonable. Id., at 143-144, n. 12. The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches of "their persons houses," and thus indicates that it is a personal right that must be invoked by an individual. But the extent to which the Amendment protects people may depend upon where those people are. While an overnight guest may have a legitimate expectation of privacy in someone else's home, see Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U. S. 91, 98-99 , one who is merely present with the consent of the householder may not, see Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 259 . And an expectation of privacy in commercial property is different from, and less than, a similar expectation in a home. New York v. Burger, 482 U. S. 691, 700 . Here, the purely commercial nature of the transaction, the relatively short period of time that respondents were on the premises, and the lack of any previous connection between them and the householder all lead to the conclusion that their situation is closer to that of one simply permitted on the premises. Any search which may have occurred did not violate their Fourth Amendment rights. Because respondents had no legitimate expectation of privacy, the Court need not decide whether the officer's observation constituted a "search." Pp. 4-8.

569 N. W. 2d 169 (first judgment) and 180 (second judgment), reversed and remanded.

Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Ginbsurg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens and Souter, JJ., joined.

Yeah, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas. Those names sound familiar. Wait... I know. They're Justices of the Supreme Court of MINNESOTA!!!!

:dunce: :rofl:

Everyone please read the warning at the bottom of this post. Take it seriously, unless you want to lose your literacy too.

[DrCory]

283. LOL!!! N/T

[Bob2bob]

288. Not True

I showed that your own source, Bouvier's Law Dictionary, understood the Second Amendment as applying to a PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms. After some flailing and misdirection you stopped trying to refute that obvious fact.

That's a giant heap of brown smelly stuff that you'd find in a field full of bulls.

You looked up the definition of "Arms" in Bouvier's Law Dictionary. After giving the definition, it makes reference to the Second Amendment. It ALSO mentioned a provision from Kentucky which protected a personal right to bear "arms."

YOU, not the Law Dictionary, linked the personal right from Kentucky with the Second Amendment as though they BOTH dealt with personal rights.

I pointed out that a statute in kentucky, which Bouvier's said was ruled unconstitutional, violated the STATE Constitution, not the Second Amendment. How can you say that I failed to refute your "obvious fact?"

[TPaine7]

256. More "unsubstantiation"

More evidence I hadn't even brought up:

Dred Scott

For if they <African Americans>were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police <60 U.S. 393, 417> regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Fourteenth Amendment

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now there are people who will blow smoke to the effect that the Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to make the Bill of Rights to apply against the states or to allow Congress to enforce the first eight Amendments against the states. Among those disagreeing with that were the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, here is how the Amendment was introduced on the floor of the Senate:

“{The Fourteenth Amendment's} first clause, {which} I regard as very important . . . relates to the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States . . . . To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be—for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature—to these should be added the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all of the people; the right to keep and bear arms. . . .

…{T}hese guarantees . . . stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution … {and} States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them …. The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.”—Senator Jacob Howard introducing the Fourteenth Amendment to the Senate, quoted by Yale Professor Amar. Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights, Creation and Reconstruction (Harrisonburg, VA: R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, 1998), 185-6 (emphases supplied).

Two points on that last quote:

1) According to some of the guys who actually wrote the Constitution, the Second Amendment right was one that the states could be compelled to respect. It is ridiculous to force an entity to respect it's own rights. I daresay that no governmental entity in the history of the world has ever needed to be compelled to respect its own rights. It follows then, that ACCORDING TO THE AUTHORS OF THE CONSTITUTION, the Second Amendment does not protect a right of the states or of state militias.

2) The right to keep and bear arms that the Framers meant to protect was a right appertaining to EACH and all of the people--a personal, individual right.

[TPaine7]

264. A clarification

the words "to each and all of the people" in my quotation apply, grammatically speaking, to "the right of people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government."

Logically, they also apply to to all the other rights listed, as is inescapable to anyone who gives the relevant 14th Amendment historical documents a fair reading. It appears that Senator Jacob Howard spelled it out for the right to assemble because while it is true that people cannot assemble in isolation, each individual has a PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL, NONCOLLECTIVE RIGHT to assemble.

Modern constitutional sophists have attempted to imply that the right of the people to assemble is collective. This makes about as much sense as saying that you have no personal right to marry because it requires two consenting adults.

[Bob2bob]

273. Another non-Second Amendment case from TPaine7.

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased,.. and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Why didn't they say "bear arms" wherever they went? Because bearing arms is NOT the same as "carrying guns." Negro's were NOT considered citizens at that time and were not eligable to serve in the militia, or, in other words, to "bear arms."

Early laws on carrying guns:

"No negro or other slave … shall be permitted to carry any gun, or any other offensive weapon, from off their master's land, without license."

"It shall not be lawful for any slave, unless in the presence of some white person, to carry or make use of fire-arms, or any offensive weapon whatsoever."

Penalty for "any Negro or Mulatto slave ... to carry any guns, swords, pistols, fowling-pieces, clubs, or other arms and weapons whatsoever, without his master's special license."

[TPaine7]

275. "Because bearing arms is NOT the same as 'carrying guns.'"

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “{s}urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate{s}: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence {is} guaranteed by the {Ohio} constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

Source: http://lii.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Don't be deceived. Bob doesn't actually know more about this than Justice Ginsburg or the Supreme Court, except of course, in his own mind.

[Bob2bob]

279. A well regulated militia... shall not be infringed

VIRGINIA (June 12, 1776)
"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state;..."

DELAWARE (September 11, 1776)
"That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government."

MARYLAND (November 11, 1776)
"That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government."

NEW HAMPSHIRE (June 2, 1784)
"A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state."
-----------------------------------------
U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible
the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee (Both clauses) of the
Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with
that end in view."
--------------------------------------
Of all the existing arms bearing provisions at that time:

1. Only ONE contained the word "keep" arms, and that was "the people" bearing arms for "the common defence."
2. Only TWO declared that "the people" have the right to "bear arms" for the defence of the "State" AND "themselves." They're the arms of the State militia forces, and the defence of "themselves" is a reference to the common/civil defence.
3. HALF of them said no more than a "well regulated militia" was the proper defence of a free State.
4. NONE of them protected a right of each "citizen" to bear arm, but they ALL protected the right of "the people" to bear arms.
5. All of them had a military context.

[Bob2bob]

282. "Bear Arms."

"At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.”

It isn't "bear" and "arms" separately, it's the phrase "bear Arms."

Acording to the Oxford English Dictionary, the phrase "bear arms" means "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." The OED dates this use to 1795.
In Heller, Scalia & Co addmitted that this was "also" what "bear ams" was understood to mean at the time, but they FALSELY claimed that it only had this military meaning when followed by "against" the named enemy. Stevens provided SEVERAL examples to prove them wrong.

"to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight."

Now, look at the original draft:

"..shall be compelled to render MILITARY SERVICE in person."

Also, if the right being protected was a personal right, why would they say that no one would be compelled to exercise their own, personal right "in person?"
It's a COLLECTIVE right, and certain individuals wouldn't be compelled to participate in the proccess "in person."

It ALL makes sense.

[Bob2bob]

284. "...and in addition thereto, secures a personal right to the citizen"

Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state. It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit.”

Only the provisions that existed at that time have any bearing on what the Second Amendment protects.
The examples given mention "state" security. Contrary to what Scalia says, this WILL be "in an organized military unit." It's THOSE arms that a militiaman has the right to defend "himself" with.

John Cockrum v. The State. 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

"It is contended, that this article of the code, is in violation of the constitution of the United States, and of this state (Texas)...

"The object of the clause first cited (Second Amendment), has reference to the perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea, that *THE PEOPLE* cannot be effectually oppressed and enslaved, who are not first *DISARMED*. The clause cited in our bill of rights (Texas), has the same broad object in relation to the government, and *IN ADDITION THERETO*, secures a *PERSONAL RIGHT* to the *CITIZEN*. The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of *THE PEOPLE* that framed the *STATE* government."

[Bob2bob]

253. Collective rights differ in their application

I don't know what you mean by saying that "collective rights differ IN THEIR APPLICATION" so I can't answer that point.

I made it clear what I meant, and you KNOW what I meant.

Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

IV.--The people of this Commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America, in Congress assembled. (See 9th and 10th Amendments.)

XVII.--The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as in time of peace armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

XIX.--The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble to consult upon the common good; give instructions to their representatives; and to request of the legislative body, by the way of addresses, petitions, or remonstrances, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer.

"The people" in all of these provisions is a collective body. But you couldn't really argue that because individuals must assemble in article XIX, that individuals must have the right to govern AS a state in article IV. When the people of the State keep and bear arms for State security, they do it with the States well regulated militia. If eligable, ie, all able bodied males aged 16 - 45, individual citizens would be called to serve. Once again, this provision differs in IT'S application to the other two.

"The people" in the U.S. BoR is ALSO a reference to a collective body and THOSE collective rights ALSO differ in their application.

Just as you can't argue that the rights of "the people" listed above are all personal rights, you can't argue that the rights of "the people" in the U.S BoR are all personal rights. They're *ALL COLLECTIVE* rights that differ in their application.

[TPaine7]

257. It's like debating relativity with a stubborn preschooler

I made it clear what I meant, and you KNOW what I meant.

You don't even know what you mean. You clearly mean nothing remotely rational.

All of the rights in the Bill of rights are collective? But some can be exercised by individuals, acting alone on their own behalf? Against the collective? Really?

Let's see how that works.

While Sally is out shopping, the police raid her house. They find stolen goods, and Sally is arrested and brought to trial. The case is "The State of New York vs Sally."

In court, however, Sally raises a Fourth Amendment defense. The police officers, having had neither warrant nor probable cause to enter her house, violated the Fourth Amendment. Now in your bizarro world, the Fourth Amendment protects "the people" which is a collective term no different from "the State of New York." Before Sally invoked the Fourth Amendment, the case was "The State of New York vs Sally." That was when the case was about stolen goods. But now she has invoked a right of the State of New York, at least according to your logic. So the case should actually be labeled something like "The State of New York vs The State of New York Exercising its Collective Rights in a Different Application."

That's the type of result you always arrive at starting from a "collective rights" theory of the Second Amendment and trying to reconcile it with reality. But 7 does not actually equal 3, anymore than you actually know what you're talking about.

I'm thoroughly bored now, I only wrote this so that the record shows how silly your arguments really are. So unless you shock me with something profound, I won't waste any more time being called a liar by someone who can't show a modicum of honesty.

You're dismissed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

258. Not quite- preschoolers are capable of gaining wisdon as they get older.

Others, maybe not...

[TPaine7]

259. Yeah, I think you're right

And here I am being patient and putting up with silly insults and put downs from someone who can't accept the definition of "all." Still chasing the chimera of the "Chosen One"--an informed, honest and intelligent proponent of gun control theory. When will I ever learn?

I should have simply referenced Heller, like GreenStormCloud did.

[Bob2bob]

262. I

All of the rights in the Bill of rights are collective?

No. Some of them are individual rights and you don't need to be part of the collective body of "the people" to be protected. (As an individual, Urquidez had the right to his trial, but he didn't belong to the collective body of "the people" that holds the right in the Fourth Amendment, so he had no Fourth Amendment protection.)

While Sally is out shopping, the police raid her house. They find stolen goods, and Sally is arrested and brought to trial. The case is "The State of New York vs Sally."

In court, however, Sally raises a Fourth Amendment defense. The police officers, having had neither warrant nor probable cause to enter her house, violated the Fourth Amendment

Once again, if Sally doesn't belong to the collective body that holds the right, she has no protection.

[Bob2bob]

281. More sidestepping from TPaine7

1. I demonstrated how collective rights differ in their application and that individuals do NOT alway have the right to invoke collective rights personally.

2. You said you didn't know what I meant by "differ in their application."

3. So, I demonstrated, AGAIN, by comparing how just TWO collective rights differ in their application to make it easier for you to understand.

4. You replied: "While Sally is out shopping, the police raid her house. They find stolen goods..."

This is why you'll always be confused.

You see, with MY understanding, I don't need to claim that the Framers used terms in a unique way just for the U.S. Bill of Rights. I don't need to hammer home the pieces of the jigsaw as you do. All MY pieces fit perfectly. "The people" is ALWAYS a collective body.

[Bob2bob]

272. Desperation

Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.

These powers, and others, in relation to rights of person.. are.. denied to the General Government

I have a list of SECOND AMENDMENT cases the length of my leg that DIRECTLY state/find/rule that the Second Amendment does NOT protect a personal right. But, as I've already said, I'd rather look at the evidence myself and rely on THAT than post these cases at you. But here you are posting bits of NON-Second Amendment cases to back up your lack of REAL evidence.

"..and OTHERS, in relation to rights of person.."

In your mind, this means the court ruled that EVERYTHING mentioned is in relation to "rights of person," doesn't it? They DON'T say "others" that are "ALSO" in relation to rights of person, do they?

[TPaine7]

274. Desperation, indeed

I've given up on Bob2bob, but I thought his case might be instructive, as well as providing comic relief.

In extreme cases, the victims of the gun control reality distortion field lose the ability to read and reason. Witness the post to which I am replying.

In your mind, this means the court ruled that EVERYTHING mentioned is in relation to "rights of person," doesn't it? They DON'T say "others" that are "ALSO" in relation to rights of person, do they?

No they don't use the word "also." The construction of the sentence would make that redundant. Of course "in my mind" the Court was saying that EVERYTHING mentioned is in relation to "rights of person." Also in the mind of every literate reader.

Some afflicted souls who suffer under the distortion field can still function if the subject is sufficiently removed from gun control. I wonder if Bob can follow this:

Nor can we imprison John, or Mike, or Stephen or Victor.

These men, and others, in relation to the alleged crime, have been found innocent by juries of their peers.

I wonder if Bob's affliction will allow him to see that not only were John, Mike, Stephen and Victor found innocent, but the "others"--the other men mentioned--were also found innocent in relation to the alleged crime.

Maybe he can, or maybe he can't. Some cases are more severe than others. Maybe he'll claim that I lose automatically because I used an analogy!

Bob seems to also think that since--according to his illiterate reading, anyway--they didn't say that the "others" are "ALSO" in relation to rights of person, then the "others" aren't necessarily in relation to rights of person. Poor Bob misses the fact that I'm not talking about the "others." We can ignore that part of the sentence altogether:

Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.

These powers... in relation to rights of person... are... denied to the General Government

The Court DIRECTLY STATES that the right to keep and bear arms is in relation to rights of person. The "others" are IRRELEVANT to my point.

****

Logic as well as literacy break down under the distortion field.

This shows, as Bob himself said, desperation. It's all very sad; perhaps it can benefit someone as a cautionary tale. (Bob reminds me of another sophist I once debated. She, at least, had the intelligence to recognize when she had been crushed. Some of the time, anyway.)

[Bob2bob]

280. A selection of TPaine7's feeble attempts at sidestepping and misdirection

A selection of TPaine7's feeble attempts at sidestepping and misdirection:

1. "An educated electorate, being necessary to.."

2. "Well informed voters, being necessary to the proper..."

3. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, we hereby grant to militia members the right.."

4. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, may be freely infringed--except as it shall affect the militia."

5. "The people do not have the "right to keep and bear arms for state security"--that's preposterous..."

6. "..the Bill of Rights uses the term "the people" in a unique way:"

7. "Apply that definition of "the people" elsewhere in the same Bill of Rights: The right of {the state of New York} to be secure in {its} person{}, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

8. "Bouvier missed the fine distinction between state and federal constitutions..."

9. "Yes, "the people" contrasts with "person.".. that is not the point you have been making. Neither "the people" or "persons" refer to anything like "the militia", "the state of New York" or a "collective" of any sort."

10. "Let me be clear. I concede your point that as a general rule in legal texts and documents, “the people” or “people” is a collective term. But that does not end the discussion, nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with the meaning of "the people" in the Second Amendment."

11. "..it has.. a meaning different from the standard meaning.

12. "Free speech, religion,.. and all the other “rights of the people” in the Bill of Rights.

13. "Your understanding would have the founders asserting the right of the state of New York to be secure in its person.."

14. "..class of persons who are part of a national community.. It does not mean the class of people considered only as a group"

15. "If you told a person from another country what “stealing” meant in English, and expressed contempt for people who stole, you could find yourself in a position similar to mine. If a friend came up and congratulated you on all your stolen bases this season, giving you a high five, the foreigner would be justified in calling you on your inconsistency. Until you explained that “stealing” a base was special terminology without the moral dimension usually associated with “stealing”--kind of a baseball “term of art.”"

16. "let's try to list the powers(RESERVED IN 10TH AMENDMENT) an ordinary individual has: 1) Choosing a career 2) Selecting who to date or marry (or who to attempt to date or marry!) 3) Selecting what house to buy out of those they can pay for 4) Selecting what car to buy out of those they can pay for 5) Deciding whether to take yoga class 6) Deciding whether to cross their legs 7) Deciding what they will wear 8) Deciding what to name their children 9) Selecting a vacation destination. What's your point?"

16. "I see no reason whatsoever to assume that because powers are granted by the people as a collective that they are retained by the people as a collective. On the contrary, I see strong logical reasons to conclude the opposite."

17.Let us further say that the government exercises this power over a national federal area in a remote desert area. The Federal government exercises its delegated power and sets the speed limit at 75 mph. Now let us say that the people had not delegated the power to the federal government to set speed limits in remote federal areas. That would mean that the people (individuals?) would retain the power to decide how fast to drive."

18. "What of the exercise of the power when the states do not reserve the power to ban liquor to themselves or to their subdivisions? The power to set alcohol consumption policy is then reserved to the people. In such cases, who decides whether to pick up a six pack of beer on the way home or to have a glass of wine with dinner at a restaurant? It is the individual."

19. "The powers to TAKE A YOGA CLASS and SELECT WHO TO DATE not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.. Yes, legally and logically, that makes perfect sense."

20..... etc, etc, etc.

Get the picture? You could be answering my simple questions instead of muddying the water with crap like this.

[Bob2bob]

286. What?????

Bob reminds me of another sophist I once debated. She, at least, had the intelligence to recognize when she had been crushed

Ha!

When someone said that the preamble doesn't give "the" reason for the rights existence, I said that they STATED the only purpose any OTHER reason must be plucked out of the air.

Then YOU said that it only states "a" purpose, as though any OTHER purpose MAY be plucked out of the air.

To back up this weak claim, you fattened out your post with a load of irrelevant stuff, like "American Political Philosophy," "Moral Logic," a "Kentucky statute," the "Internal Logic of the Bill of Rights" and this text from a non-Second Amendment case. You beef up and milk this non-Second Amendment case for all it's worth, which isn't much.
---------------------------------------
For a better understanding of what the Second Amendment protects, LOOK at the preamble.

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England: Introduction Of the Nature of Laws in general.
"If words happen to be still dubious, WE ESTABLISH THE MEANING FROM THE CONTEXT; with which it may be of singular use to compare a word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. THUS THE.. PREAMBLE, is.. called in TO HELP THE CONSTRUCTION of an act of parliament."

The Framers "called in" the "preamble" to "help the construction" of the Second Amendment for a PURPOSE. That purpose cannot be ignored.
-----------------------------------------
For a better understanding of what the Second Amendment protects, look at the original drafts.

Original draft:
"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 SERVIVE* in person."

First amended version
"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*."

Compare the words following "compelled to" in each version. To "render military service" and to "bear arms" are the same things.

The right being protected is a right for the community as a whole, but anyone religiously scrupulous would not be compelled to participate in the proccess "in person." .


--------------------------------------
If the purpose of the Second Amendment was to secure a fundamental, personal right to own a gun, it would JUMP out of the page at you. It isn't a gun, or personal right amendment, it's a well regulated militia amendment.

House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

17, 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:749--52, 766--67
<17 Aug.>

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "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."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the USE OF A MILITIA? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a MILITIA, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the MILITIA, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective MILITIA to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.

Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.

Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from MILITIA DUTY who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of BEARING ARMS.

Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "UPON PAYING AN EQUIVALENT, to be established BY LAW."

Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be EXCUSED provided they found a SUBSTITUTE.

Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render MILITARY SERVICE, in person, upon PAYING AN EQUIVALENT."

Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the STATES, respectively, WILL HAVE GOVERNMENT OF THE MILITIA, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.

Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a SUBSTITUTE, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself TURNED OUT TO FIGHT.

Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of bearing arms? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.

Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms," struck out. He would always leave it to the BENEVOLENCE OF THE LEGISLATURE, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE GOVERNMENT. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the ORGANIZATION OF THE MILITIA, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.

I have no reason to believe but THE LEGISLATURE will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they OUGHT TO BE LEFT TO THEIR DISCRETION.

The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.

Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,

Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.

Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.

Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.

Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.

<20 Aug.>

Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their SERVICES, nor can an EQUIVALENT be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a MILITIA can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get EXCUSED from BEARING ARMS.

Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, they would rather die than use them? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to bear arms.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html

[friendly_iconoclast]

287. What a tragedy it is that *none* of the SC justices agree with you. Not a one.

Even those alleged liberals think it's an individual right. They just differed on how that right may be regulated.

But of course, none of them has a grasp of the Constitution that equals yours.

Your brilliant legal mind will go unappreciated by our legal system, alas

[PavePusher]

276. Umm, did you happen to get the memo?

The USSC said they were wrong.

Sorry 'bout that...

[Bob2bob]

221. Government-regulated Militia

"That leaving the power to the several States, they would respectively best know the situation and circumstances of their citizens, and the *REGULATIONS* that would be necessary and sufficient to effect a *WELL REGULATED MILITIA* in each -- That we were satisfied the militia had heretofore been as well disciplined, as if they had been under the *REGULATIONS* of Congress..." - Luther Martin

"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." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29.

GOVERNMENT REGULATED.

[Hoopla Phil]

244. not government regulated WELL REGULATED

Well trained with like weapons.
Well practiced with the same weapons as the organized militia.

Have the arms ready and bring them with you should you be called forth for duty.

[Bob2bob]

248. Whose "regulations?"

not government regulated WELL REGULATED - Well trained with like weapons. Well practiced with the same weapons as the organized militia. Have the arms ready and bring them with you should you be called forth for duty.

"That leaving the power to the several States, they would respectively best know the situation and circumstances of their citizens, and the *REGULATIONS* that would be necessary and sufficient to effect a *WELL REGULATED MILITIA* in each -- That we were satisfied the militia had heretofore been as well disciplined, as if they had been under the *REGULATIONS* of Congress..." - Luther Martin

"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." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29.

Whose "regulations" are necessary to "effect a well-regulated militia" in each State if not the "regulations" of either the Federal or State Governments?

[Hoopla Phil]

250. Not "whose" regulations as that is the wrong definition in context of 2A. But

you already knew that didn't you. Many such as yourself have desperately tried to shovel the wrong definition into legal text for many years. Now SCOTUS has finally settled it. If you do not like it you can try to have the 2A repealed but until then you cannot deny reality. Please read Heller, it might shed some light on the lack of knowledge you seem to have on what, and how many, definitions there are on "regulate". Of course you'll need to read the footnotes and follow them to the well researched historical writings of the subject. The easiest thing to do is simply to an internet search on "definition of regulate".

[Abq_Sarah]

41. Would you consider it threatening

If a group of people lobbied to strip citizens of free speech rights? If cities passed laws that stripped your freedom of assembly?

Just because you choose not to exercise a right doesn't mean its disposable.

[ChicagoSuz219]

76. OK... I give... y'all have convinced me...

...I'm getting me an Uzi!!

I think I saw one on craigslist... ;-)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

164. The licenses and permits for an Uzi are very expensive.

[Callisto32]

20. Than. Don't. Own. Them.

[ChicagoSuz219]

27. I don't. n/t

[DonP]

21. The Constitution and Bill of Rights doesn't really care what you like ...

... anymore than they cared about what George Wallace wanted either.

And stop giving yourself imaginary "rights" that only exist in your fear fevered mind.

Maybe you'd be happier and feel safer if you moved out to Schaumburg or Buffalo Grove, no wait, they allow their citizens to own those awful, evil black "assault weapons" there. Oh Nooooes!

[ChicagoSuz219]

26. You're talking nonsense...

...all I said was that I don't like guns.

[DissedByBush]

35. I respect that you don't like guns

Seriously.

I don't like abortion either.

But I support a woman's right to it.

You should support rights whether or not you like or use them.

Otherwise you don't support rights, only what you like.

[ChicagoSuz219]

37. You have the right to have one...

...I have the right not to be around them... or like them.

[DissedByBush]

38. Except

You can't infringe on the rights of others by saying they can't have them around you, unless of course they're on your property.

[ChicagoSuz219]

39. How 'bout this for a compromise...

You can have ALL the guns you want...

...just no bullets. ;-)

[PavePusher]

42. Nope.

Did you come here to disciss/debate, or just to instigate?

[ChicagoSuz219]

44. Neither.

Just weighed in with my own personal opinion. It riled people up. I just answered the people who wrote to me... like yourself.

[DissedByBush]

54. Okay

You can have all the free speech you want, just no access to any medium over which you can communicate with anybody.

[ChicagoSuz219]

77. You're not the boss of me... LOL n/t

[Callisto32]

52. Except you DON"T have the right to not be around them in public places.

Or, on another's private property if s/he chooses to allow it.

Just like I don't have the right to not be accosted by ANY kind of political activist in those situations.

You DO have the right to ban guns from your property, and I support that right. Set up your own, personal gun-free zone if you wish. I don't care, but don't force one down my throat. I'm not even saying that you personally want to do this, I'm just making the point.

[ChicagoSuz219]

78. I choose to not be around them...

...or, have them in my home.

Is that okay?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

100. Do you work from home?

[ChicagoSuz219]

108. I freelance...

...here, there & everywhere.

[friendly_iconoclast]

134. If you leave your house, you *will* be around people with guns, and...

...being in Illinois, the ones who are not cops will be criminals. If you think you aren't, it's because the guns are concealed.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

99. Where is that enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

[ChicagoSuz219]

111. Life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness... n/t

[Euromutt]

118. That's the Declaration of Independence

While a thoroughly stirring document, it has no legal force whatsoever.

Your pursuit of happiness does not permit you to infringe on the rights of others.

John Stuart Mill may have given the concept its most-quoted expression in On Liberty, but Jefferson foreshadowed it when he argued for freedom of religion, stating that "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Similarly, Mill argued that the only limitation on personal freedom should be insofar as the exercise thereof causes material harm to others (or, in Fifth Amendment terms, deprives them of life, liberty or property without due process). Provided no material harm is being done to you, you have no more right to demand those around cannot possess firearms around you (and harness the government to that end) than a coalition of conservatives have the right to demand the local government prohibit the sale and possession of, say, The New Republic within its jurisdiction.

Or, to put in a more direct perspective, the fact that you're significantly more likely to die as the result of a motor vehicle collision than from a gunshot wound does not give you the right to demand that motor vehicles be excluded from your presence wherever you go.

[ChicagoSuz219]

127. I've stopped playing. Have a nice life. n/t

[DrCory]

285. No, You Were Defeated. N/T

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

122. Where exactly is that statement enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

[ChicagoSuz219]

125. It's in the Declaration of Independence...

...oops, my bad.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

139. It's okay people are often misinformed about the facts. We won't hold it against you.

[ChicagoSuz219]

147. & back at ya, Dave... ;-) n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

162. Except I wasn't the one who was ignorant about the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

[ChicagoSuz219]

171. You win. No name-calling please. n/t

[aikoaiko]

55. That's not all you said. You also said you hope they uphold the ban.

You defended that statement by saying you "don't like guns".

I can understand your personal dislike for guns and choice to not own them. But to say that you wish no one in Chicago should be able to own handguns because you don't like them is a infringement on others' rights IMHO.

[ChicagoSuz219]

79. That's been the law for 28 years...

...I don't feel the need to overturn it.

Can't I have that opinion?

[DonP]

56. Facts are nonsense? - Feelings rule all?

Not a very comfortable way to go through life. Look we're really not trying to pick on you. Most of us, even sarcastic l'il ole Chicago Boy me, are trying to understand your attitude and maybe provide enough new and accurate information for you to reconsider your point of view.

No doubt, guns are dangerous, but they exist in the world and they are not going to be magically made to disappear. The smart thing to do when faced with a fear is learn about it and try and come to grips with a way to deal with that fear. Knowledge is usually the first big step and often the best solution.

It has been pointed out that we are already surrounded by people with guns in Chicago. Mostly gang bangers and criminals by definition. Daley's beloved gun ban does nothing but disarm the law abiding like Mr. McDonald. The next Englewood, Chatham, Pilsen et. al. shooting and subsequent "take back the streets rally" is just a matter of days away probably.

For some reason you are afraid of allowing law abiding citizens, like Otis McDonald, to own guns in their own home. What baffles many of us I guess, is how anyone can be so willing to forfeit a constitutional right for a totally imaginary feeling of safety. Or are you suggesting that Chicago is a safer city with its gun ban? The problem there is the actual crime and murder numbers don't add up and we're back to how it makes you "feel".

I don't think any of us expect you to decide, based on this thread, to become a competitive pistol shooter down at the ISRA Bonfield range.

But it would be nice if you learned a little something about gun owners (after all there are around 90 million of us), like many of us, the guns themselves, the sports we all pursue and the laws that already exist. Blind ignorance (small i) is not an attractive feature.

It's OK to say "I just don't like chocolate ice cream" but it's not OK to say, "I just don't like Free Speech or Voting Rights" both of which enjoy the same constitutional protections as the second amendment.

[ChicagoSuz219]

80. It's been the law for 28 years...

...why the big deal, all of a sudden?

And, I still don't get why anyone cares what I think. I don't have a vote on the Supreme Court. If I did, then I would understand all the outrage & concern... but, I don't.

I never said I hated gun owners. I just don't like being around guns. They scare me.

[oneshooter]

89. Slavery was the law for over 100 years, no big deal, right?

[ChicagoSuz219]

91. If there's a sillier argument than that...

...I haven't heard it. Congratulations... I think you win.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. That would be a concession of defeat.

[ChicagoSuz219]

105. Not at all...

...it was an 'award.' Not a competition.

[friendly_iconoclast]

133. Some Jim Crow laws were in place for decades...

...would that have been an argument for keeping them?

[proteus_lives]

24. Fine.

But. why. can't. others. own. them.

?

[ChicagoSuz219]

25. What for?

I could understand owning one if you needed it to hunt for food. We've got supermarkets.

Wanna do target practice or skeet shooting? Rent one.

Do you really NEED your gun, for survival?

[Pavulon]

30. Do you really need the right to an abortion. Do you really need to have oral sex? Need to vote?

(those were illegal at one point) NEED is loads of fun until it is pointed at any cause you care about. Truth is you dont need shit except food water and shelter.

But yea, I have carried a rifle where my survival was at stake and I should be able to carry a pistol now.

[ChicagoSuz219]

32. LOL... why do you care what I think?

I don't care what you think...

Let's just agree to disagree, and move on.

[PavePusher]

43. You're the one who came in and started to drop comments.

Usually that's an invitation to debate....

[ChicagoSuz219]

45. It was a simple statement...

"I live in Chicago and I hope they uphold the ban."

There's nothing to debate. It's just how I feel.

[paulsby]

143. emphasis on "feel" because there is no thinking involved

especially in a person who admits her mind is closed, who admits no evidence could change her mind

[YllwFvr]

210. The only place with such a ban

DC lifted the ban, and saw no increase in crime. I think thats very important. Lots of states have loosened gun laws in the past 15 odd years or so and crime has been dropping for 45 years.

Chicago is a pretty violent town "without" guns, and by no guns I mean the good guys. Why change it? Why not? I promise you it wont make things worse. Because guns have gotten more proliferate in recent times and violence everywhere else hasnt gotten worse.

I get you dont like them. Ive been robbed at gun point. No shots fired, but scary as all hell. Im not a fan when they are pointed at me ;). But I think people in your area should own them. Why not? All the bad guys do.
Bad guy with gun vs unarmed civilian means badguy wins 90% of the time.
Bad guy with gun vs armed civialian means there is an even chance.
People that spend the time and effort to go get a pistola to carry generally also take the time to figure out the laws, and how it works, and how to shoot it. They are less likely to use it than a crook because they know that if they get pissed and shoot or even draw it without cause they will likely get fined, charged, or maybe lose the ability to have a gun forever.
A criminal already knows it illegal so fears of breaking the law hold no sway.
NBC interviewed inmates who were in for home thefts. The criminals confessed they held little fear for the police, but were alot more hesitant if they knew the owner was home, because they were concerned they would get shot. They said they are way more likely to run into a armed and pissed housewife than a cop while looting a house.

[proteus_lives]

34. The need canard.

Automatic fail.

Maybe I'll give a answer when you answer why you feel like stripping the right from others.

[ChicagoSuz219]

81. Whatever... I don't know what you're talking about. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

102. The Derek Zoolander Center For Children Who Can't Read Good

and don't know how to use google.

[ChicagoSuz219]

107. Stop stalking me... n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

48. Sometimes, guns are needed for survival, especially in today's modern cities.

When a robber is about to murder you, having a gun on your person is a definate survival need.

[ChicagoSuz219]

82. If someone wanted to rob me...

...I'd just hand over the stuff. Nothing I have is worth getting killed over.

That's what the Police say to do. In New York, they tell you to carry $10 just so you have something to give them...

In 23 years, the only problem I ever had with violence was with my ex-husband. Where were all you gun owners then? LOL

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

103. What if someone wants to rape and murder you?

Nice of you to rely on those you denigrate to provide for your defense.

[ChicagoSuz219]

106. I don't go looking for trouble...

...I don't go out of my way to put myself in vulnerable situations.

I'm not denigrating anyone & certainly am not relying on any of you to come to my defense.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

123. That hasn't worked out so well on at least one occasion for you correct?

[cowman]

57. The 2nd

amend is not about hunting, it's about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulsby]

142. i don't like fat people in tight spandex

your point is?

[proteus_lives]

23. Would you keep a car with a busted engine?

[cabluedem]

40. As do I! All hell would break loose if they didn't. nt

[Tejas]

46. Thank goodness only criminals have guns,

otherwise your dreams of blood-in-the-streets would come true. Better to keep Chicago as the land of peace and harmony it is.

[GreenStormCloud]

49. Don't you get tired of "blood in the streets" predictions?

Your side has been predicting increased gun violence for years, but instead the gun violent rate is going down. Face it:

Guns sales are way up.
CCW permits are way up.
Violent crime is way down.

[cowman]

58. Oh yeah

Just look at all the "Blood running in the streets" from other states that allow guns, oops didn't happen. What a ridiculous statement

[friendly_iconoclast]

132. Like it did in DC after their handgun ban was lifted?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x278888

Heh.

[old mark]

3. I believe Daly is deluding himself.

He sure is about the "dead children" nonsense.....


mark

[Euromutt]

4. Yep; he's clinging to his last weeks of denial before the hammer falls

Though I'd wager that in his more lucid moments, he got that dickwad Adrian Fenty to mail him a copy of D.C.'s blatantly obstructionist permit policy, with an eye to implementing the same thing when the Court rules against Chicago.

[one-eyed fat man]

5. He'll have the Chicago Gun Office

located in the terminal building at Meigs Field.

On September 17, 2006, the city dropped all legal appeals and agreed to pay the $33,000 fine as well as repay $1 million in misappropriated FAA Airport Improvement Program funds that it used to destroy the airfield. In typical Daley lying sack of shit fashion, he claimed that safety concerns required the closure, due to the risk of terrorist-controlled aircraft attacking the downtown waterfront near Meigs Field.

In reality, closing the airport made the airspace less restrictive. When the airport was open, downtown Chicago was within Meigs Field's Class D airspace, requiring two-way radio communication with the tower. The buildings in downtown Chicago are now in Class E/G airspace, which allows any airplane to legally fly as close as 1,000 feet (300 m) from these buildings with no radio communication at all.

And just like the Meigs travesty, Dick(head) Daley doesn't have to fund these protracted legal battles out of his own pocket. The long-suffering citizens of Chicago are on the hook for all of it!

[bossy22]

7. Not surprising

What else is he going to say? He can't say that odds are against chicago; that would be a political and media death move. It's all about politics. It's like John Mccain the night before the election saying that is feeling very confident and optimisitic even though the chances of him winning were slim.

The truth is in these sitautions both sides will always portray themselves as optimistic about their chances. The truth will lie in the decision

Here is an interesting analysis of the entire case by SCOTUSblog http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/02/second-amendment-drama-act-ii/

he is basically predicting that it will be incorporated and the chicago handgun ban will be no more

[TPaine7]

10. I wonder how "Hizzoner" is feeling now?

It appears that incorporation is a slam dunk (though I'm still concerned about the level of scrutiny).

I hope the Court rules for strict scrutiny and someone posts Daley's head exploding on youtube. Heck, I would pay to see it.

[slackmaster]

11. I no longer think Daley is an authoritarian megalomanic douchebag

He's a delusional authoritarian megalomanic douchebag.

[PavePusher]

16. In my best Nelson Muntz voice...

Haa-haa!

[Pullo]

28. Don't forget the nepotism ..... Daley really likes the nepotism ......

Its just how he rolls .....

[aikoaiko]

36. Delusional -- that was my first thought too.

[Hoopla Phil]

12. So how long until the actual decision is handed down?

[X_Digger]

13. Good question..

.. I'd say sooner than previously expected, since they pretty well seem to have squashed the P&I pleadings.

Anyone want to start a pool? I'll take the spot for May 10.

[DonP]

22. Not until June probably ntxt

[Statistical]

14. 12,000 guns = 12,000 kids. Must be new disposable one use guns.

Come preloaded and sealed from factory like an AT-4.

[Callisto32]

18. You forgot part.

I'm pretty sure its ass-clown.


Just sayin'.

[jefflrrp]

50. Daley's a moron...

with a special place reserved for himself in hell.

[Callisto32]

51. Is it the throne?

[Ter]

68. If they side with Chicago, states may succeed

N/T

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

155. you mean seceed? No states are succeeding at anything, far as I can tell. n/t

[aliendroid]

202. actually Texas is succeeding...economically

Texas is succeeding on economic recovery more than other states.

[paulsby]

72. this police officer and most police officers i know think daley's full of crap

and what does he mean "those of US?"\

he's the frigging mayor. he's not on the front line. i am.

most of us ON THE FRONT LINE (iow line cops, not cop-o-crats) support concealed carry

daley is an idiot

[jazzhound]

260. Thank you paulsby!!!

We need to hear from LEO's more frequently on this subject. A 2005 survey of police chiefs discovered that 66% were in favor of concealed carry, and given the trending I'd have to guess that the percentage is higher today. Since police chiefs and officers have to deal with the consequences of bad decisions regarding gun control laws, you'd think that our resident anti-gunners could figure out that there's strong incentive for them to get it right, and a high probability that they've made the right calls! I'll go out on a limb and guess that front-line cops are good with concealed carry in higher percentages than cop-o-crats. ;-)

By the way.......I'm one of the new kids on the block. When we all have dinner tomorrow night, shall I bring traditional apple pie, or Dutch apple?

[aliendroid]

203. like with the olympics, delay's going to have another slapdown

He should keep his mouth shut because he's going to be humbled again soon.

[PavePusher]

205. And also, like the Olympics...

he's doing it with the people's tax dollars.

I'd really have no problem with him spending his own money on the project, although I'd still enjoy a deep sense of Schadenfreude when he gets sent back to his den with his tail between his legs.

I can only dream that the court orders him to replenish every tax dollar he spent on this, out of his own pocket.

Yeah, and right afterwards, Pegasus will fly out of my butt.

Damn.

[GreenStormCloud]

209. Of course he was optimistic. I bet his aids told him everything was going great.

How long would an aid last who continually told Daley the truth?

I wonder how they will decide who gets to tell him when the decision comes down? Maybe they will just put the paper on his desk and scatter.

[PavePusher]

212. I'd pay cash for a ticket to watch that... n/t

[paulsby]

217. Daley DELUSIONAL more like it

seriously.

[Bob2bob]

223. Test

Test 1

Test 2

[SsevenN]

255. Dailey

Is the Poster child of elitist politicians.

I can't wait for McDonald and company to steam roll him.