The Anti-logic of Judge Reinhardt (9th Circuit)

[hansberrym]

(Excerpted From Silveira v. Lockyer)
The Pennsylvania minority, so frequently cited by the proponents of the individual rights view, also used language markedly different from that of the Second Amendment. Its proposal for a federal constitutional amendment,which was rejected in favor of the Second Amendment, would have unambiguously established a personal right to possess arms for personal purposes:

“No law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them,
unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from
individuals . . . .” The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the
Minority of the Convention of the State of Pennsylvania to Their
Constituents, at 623- 24 (quoted in Finkelman, supra, at 208
(end quote) (my emphasis)


Judge Reinhardt selectively quotes from the Pennsylvania Minority but he slips up and allows a little too much truth into his argument. The Judge admits that the provision that he quotes from (#7)is “unambiguously” directed to an individual right. A reading of the actual proposed amendments from the PA Minority is telling. Note that there were 14 proposed amendments in all, below are the complete versions of the 2 proposals which are mentioned in the Silveira opinion. Compare the Judge's edited version to the full text.


7) That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of
themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the
purpose of killing game, and no law shall be passed for disarming
the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real
danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in
the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be
kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict
subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.(my emphasis)


11) That the power of organizing, arming and disciplining the
militia (the manner of disciplining the militia to be prescribed by
Congress) remain with the individual states, and that Congress
shall not have authority to call or march any of the militia out of
their own state, without the consent of such state, and for such
length of time only as such state shall agree.

That the sovereignty, freedom and independency of the several
states shall be retained, and every power, jurisdiction and right,
which is not by this constitution expressly delegated to the United
States in Congress assembled.
(excerpted from The Anti-Federalist and the Constitutional
Convention Debates; Ralph Ketcham, Mentor, copyright 1986)



How does Judge Reinhardt explain that the words “the people have a right to bear arms” appear in a proposed amendment(#7) that in the judge's own words would have "unambiguously established an individual right"?

He doesn’t – Judge Reinhardt conveniently edits those words out of the original text when writing his opinion.

Do you suppose the purpose of the editing was to save space?, or was it an attempt to deceive by telling only a half-truth?

[the_acid_one]

1. I think it's obvious.

Selective quoting is a common tactic, whether it be using 18 year olds as "children" in statistics. Or leaving out such things like "the people have a right to bear arms".

In my opinion it takes some very creative reading to interpret this, or even the actual second ammendment, as being a "collective" right. the meaning is quite obvious, as it says exactly what it means.

Whats amusing is that the 9th circuit court recently ruled that the ATF cannot regulate home made machine guns.

So now they're saying "the people dont have a right to bear arms, but they have a right to make their own machine guns"

Pretty conflicting rulings.

[hansberrym]

11. The Ninth Circuit has some very good judges and some ...

less than honest judges.


Someone here pointed out the disenting opinion in Silveira (on whether to hear Silveira en banc) a few months ago. It is good reading and it shows that not all of the judgs on the Ninth Circuit are of Judge Reinhardt's ilk. See Findlaw and search for Silveira then look for the latest ruling by the Ninth Circuit.

[MrBenchley]

2. I think it's hilarious that the RKBA crowd

Wants to pretend that these words don't exist: "Its proposal for a federal constitutional amendment,which was rejected in favor of the Second Amendment"

In other words, it don't fucking matter how much of it Reinhardt quoted or didn't quote. The Founding Fathers REJECTED it.

[hansberrym]

3. The founders did NOT reject "that the people have a right to bear arms"

The actual right that is recognized is worded nearly the same:


...that the people have a right to bear arms...( PA minority proposal)

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms... (second amendment)

and that is why "Honest Abe" Reinhardt edited the quote.

Furthermore the PA minority places restrictive clauses that do not appear in the Second Amendment:

(PA minority)
7) That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game, and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers. (my emphasis)
(end quote)

The above phrases in boldface are restrictive clauses which LIMIT the meaning of the preceding phrase. There are no such phrases in the second amendment. Therefor the second amendment is at least as broad as the right that was called for by the PA minority(which Judge Reinhardt decribed as "unambiguously" an individual right)


The Founders did NOT reject the individual RKBA.

[MrBenchley]

5. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrrre.....

"Its proposal for a federal constitutional amendment, which was rejected in favor of the Second Amendment"

[hansberrym]

6. Tell us how the phrases are different.

The actual right that is recognized is worded nearly the same:


...that the people have a right to bear arms...( PA minority proposal)

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms... (second amendment)



Why would Judge Reinhardt leave out that particular phrase from his argument?

[CO Liberal]

7. Here's the Difference

In the PA text, a complete statement appears. In the second amendment, a dependent clause appears - other clauses set the conditions for bearing arms (a well-regulated militia).

In other words, NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

[hansberrym]

9. Show me how the first phrase "sets the conditions" ...

Conditionals begin with words such as "if" or "when".

DO you really believe that the Second Amendment is written as a conditional?

[CO Liberal]

27. You're Applying 21st-Century Grammatical Rules....

...to 18th-Century text. It just doesn't work.

The first clause ("A well-regulated militia"), names the condition; the second clause ("being necessary...") states WHY and WHEN the condition is valid, and the third clause ("the right to bear arms") states what is allowed under those conditions.

Trust me - I've been a technical writer for over 20 years now. I know English usage.

[MrSandman]

28. Well regulated meant

"well ordered, not organized.

[CO Liberal]

52. Show Me an Example Of That Usage...

...in text written in the 18th Century. Pro-gunners have been using that lame argument for years now, but have never been able to back it up.

[hijinks]

56. from fed 29

The regulation they were refering to was to ensure that EVERY man was armed.

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. "

[CO Liberal]

60. "...assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

That function has since been taken over by the National Guard.

[hijinks]

61. the national guard isn't a militia, sorry

keep ignoring the rest of the passage. The National guard does not keep the body of the people as a whole armed and equiped.

``The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

[MrSandman]

63. The national guard would have been callled

a "select militia." Although with the new force structure, they are more part of a standing army. Over half theGuardsman I know are deployed. I know...a really scientific sample.

[BullDozer]

65. Bzzzzzzzzzzzt thanks for playing though

The National Guard is part of the Army, and is not the only militia.

This is made clear in the 1990 Supreme Court case Perpich vs. Department of Defense. Then Minnesota Gov. Rudy Perpich claimed the DoD violated the Constitution when it ordered the Minnesota National Guard (which he claimed was the 'state militia') to duty outside the state without his consent or that of the state legislature.

The Supreme Court ruled against Perpich. It held the National Guard is an integral component of the US Army Reserve system (it has been since 1916). It further supported its ruling by specifying the difference between the “special militia” (in this case the Minnesota Guard) instead of the “general militia” (citizens with privately procured and owned arms) as expressed in the 2nd Amendment.

Basically the National Guard does exactly what the federal government tells it to do regardless of what the Governor in their home state wishes.

Since 1933 all persons who have enlisted in a State National Guard unit have simultaneously enlisted in the National Guard of the United States. Their National Guard enlistment (Federal) takes priority.

[hijinks]

66. it is the NATIONAL guard

that should be a dead giveaway about what it is. just another part of the standing army the founders warned us against.

[agrnmysl]

71. Please help

is not the National Guard a standing army by deffinition? And to solidify your point, the reason the 2 cnd amendment is there? To ensure the people the right of the people to protect themselves from the organization of the standing army and the army under control of a governmental body?

[slackmaster]

79. You are right about that point, CO

The function of being assembled once or twice a year has been passed to the NG, which along with the Naval Reserve acts as a select militia.

However, the states still maintain their own unorganized militias which consist of the body of the people, and the federal government still maintains its obligation "...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..." (Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution), though it's become so underfunded it's hardly recognizable as such.

http://www.odcmp.com

The National Guard is only one of the militias. The general population is still the pool from which members of the NG, officers of the state militias, the Naval Militia, and the standing army and Navy are drawn.

[CO Liberal]

87. The Third Amendment Is Still In Effect, Too

And when was the last time you heard of ANYONE being forced to quarter soldiers. The Third Amendment is antiquated - perhaps the Second is as well.

[RoeBear]

88. If the third amendment referred to...

...quill pens and buggy whips then it would be antiquated. It appears that the third is the strongest of all the amendments because no administration has tried to subvert it.

Or put it this way: would you like to repeal the third amendment so Bush could quarter soldiers in your home?

[Paladin]

91. Got To Hand It To You, Roe

Even by the extraordinarily low standards of logic and persuasion normally exhibited in the Gun Dungeon by the RKBA crowd, your defense of the Third Amendment sets some sort of benchmark. "The strongest of all the amendments"??? Lord have mercy, the things you guys have to resort to in support of an 18th century viewpoint on guns......

[MrSandman]

92. Isn't the 18th century

viewpoint that guns are only for the state militia?

"Lord have mercy, the things you guys have to resort to in support of an 18th century viewpoint on guns......"

At least that is what we have been told.

[hijinks]

93. to paraphrase jefferson

the third amendment will only be needed when they try to take it away.

[MrSandman]

89. Was anybody forced to quarter soldiers in 19th century?

Why is it antiquated?

[hijinks]

59. another interesting part in bold

Well regulated ment well trained!

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. "

[MrSandman]

62. Here are some with one modern commentary

Now please do me the honor of an example from the 18th century that states that the national guard is other than a select militia.


"Boston Herald American"
pseudonym John De Witt:

"It is asserted by the most respectable writers upon the Government, that a well regulated militia, composed of the yeomanry of the country..."
12/3/1787


State Gazette of South Carolina--pseudonym M.T.Cicero
"...Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals..."
9/8/1788



Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer--Samuel Bryan writing under pseudonym Centinel(sic)
"It is remarkable that this article(2nd Amend.) only makes the observation, "that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, is the best security of the free state;" it does not ordain or constitutionally provide for the establishment of one..."
9/9/1789



Providence Gazette and Journal
"...that a well-regulated militia include the body of the people capable of bearing arms."
6/5/1790


From Ratification conventions

New York Convention
7/26/1788
"...That the people have the right to keep and bear arms: that a well-regulated militia including the boy of the people capable of bearing arms..."

Virginia Convention
6/27/1788
"...that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms...standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty..."

New York Convention
7/7/1788
"That the militia should always be kept wee organized, armed, and disciplined and include, according to past usages of the states, all the men capable of bearing arms, and that no regulations tending to render the general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, of distinct bodies of military men...ought to be made."


States' Constitutions

Virginia
6/12/1776
"...a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people..."

Delaware
9/11/1776
"..a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free government."

Maryland
11/11/1776
"..a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government."

New Hampshire
6/2/1784
"..a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state."

"But in places where close attention is paid to what words actually say, the states'-rights reading of the Second Amendment has attracted surprisingly little support. After all, the Second Amendment does not say, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed." Nor do the words of the amendment assert that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is conditional upon membership in some sort of organized soldiery like the National Guard. Indeed, if there is conditional language in the Second Amendment at all, evidently the contingency runs the other way: "Because the people have a right to keep and bear arms, states will be assured of the well regulated militias that are necessary for their security." Some version of this reading is supported by almost all of the constitutional historians and lawyers who have published research on the subject. Indeed, this view is so dominant in the academy that Garry Wills, the lone dissenter among historians on the proper reading of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," has dubbed it the Standard Model of the Second Amendment."

http://www.reason.com/9603/fe.POLSBYguns.text.shtml





edited for spacing...S

[hansberrym]

29. IF you have been a technical writer for say...

220 years, I will take your word for it.

Note that the first part of my reply is written as a conditional, it sets the conditions for the second part of my reply. I will not take your word for it.


Funny thing is, throughout the Constitution the framers were able to write conditionals and qualifiers that are easily recognizable as such by 21st century common folk (for example see amendments 5, 6, and 7).



If the Second amendment began with phrases such as these:



If a well regulated militia is necessary

When a well regulated militia is necessary...

As part of a well regulated militia that is ...

In a well regulated militia necessary to the...

or

When serving in a well-regulated militia necessary....




your argument would make sense. But no such words or phrases are there.

[MrBenchley]

10. If anything

what this shows is how decisively the Founding Fathers rejected the individual rights argument....

When the Whiskey Rebellion broke out, Washington didn't announce "Oh goody....people bearing arms, just the way we drew it up..."

http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/page1.html

http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/page2.html

[demsrule4life]

12. True Democrats don't agree with you

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.
By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."
-John F. Kennedy (NRA life member)


"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
Hubert Humphrey

[MrBenchley]

13. Yeah?

What does Robert Novak say, dems?

[hansberrym]

17. More Anti-logic .... Bench you can not be claiming that JFK...

and Hubert Humphrey were not real Democrats- can you?

[MrBenchley]

19. Gee, hans....who are you trying to kid?

And where does either of those quotes say word one about any inndividual right? Both gentlemen are clearly talking about state militias.

[demsrule4life]

22. Maybe you missed this sentence from JFK

and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,'

[hansberrym]

25. Dems, don't you understand that "citizen" was a colloquial expression...

meaning "state militia" way back in the 1960's? (yuk, yuk)

[MrBenchley]

30. Like JFK said,, "as part of a well regulated militia"

[slackmaster]

33. Please cite where and when JFK said that

I'm not familiar with the quote.

[MrSandman]

64. Confusing stuff

"part of" vs. "and"... I always did confuse those conjunctive thingeys.

ed. for punct...s

[MrSandman]

85. Reasonableness may win elections

"...we find in the bill of rights Amendments 2 and 3, specifically authorizing a decentralized militia, gauranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

Earl Warren, "The Billof Rights and the Military", 37 N.Y.U. L REV. 181 (1962)

"The trouble is that the Bill of Rights was intended to empower individuals, not groups--and certainly not governments. It was intended to restrain majorities, not to arm them. Indeed, most liberal civil libertarians adamantly construe the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eight Amendments as a grant of individual rights. (They'd construe the Third Amendment similarly if the government ever tried forcing us to quarter troops.) Still, they perversely single out the Second Amendment as a grant of collective rights, mostly because of a cultural aversion to guns. Liberals tend to disdain the right to own a gun the way conservatives disdain the right to read pornography.

"I'm not advocating gun ownership or an end to gun controls. But considering my own fierce attachment to the First Amendment, I have some sympathy for people fiercely attached to the Second Amendment, because they believe that individual autonomy depends on a right of self-defense. It's long past time for liberals to stop demonizing gun owners and fantasizing about virtually eliminating guns. We'd have to erase the Fourth Amendment--or what's left of it after the drug war--to rid American households of their firearms. We should, by now, have learned the lessons of Prohibition. The failures of efforts to ban alcohol, abortion, and various drugs have made clear the futility (and socioeconomic costs) of campaigns to criminalize behaviors in which millions of Americans indulge.

Consider the practical and political benefits of recognizing a basic right to own a gun. Liberals would be spared the embarrassment of passing foolish, largely symbolic laws like the 1994 ban on "assault" rifles, which arbitrarily applied to a small class of semiautomatic weapons, when most gun crimes involved handguns. Democrats would greatly enhance their electability in regions where support for gun ownership is high and lobbying by the National Rifle Association is intense. And opposition to gun controls might decrease if gun owners did not fear that every restriction on their rights was leading down a slippery slope toward prohibition."

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/2/kaminer-w.html

Wendy Kaminer is a senior correspondent for The American Prospect and a contributing editor at The Atlantic Monthly. She also serves on the national board of the American Civil Liberties Union.

[hansberrym]

15. How Bench? By SHOWING that the founders...

were opposed to TREASON?

Or that they were opposed to PRIVATE ARMIES ?
(it should be noted that most states have provisions for an individual right to own arms, but they also forbid the formation of private military forces. If anything these facts argue against the "Collective rights" interpretation.)


Did Washington march against that group that was in REBELLION? (Yes)

Did Washington go disarming ALL the law-abiding gun owners? (NO)



You take the STRAWMAN argument to the extreme.

[MrBenchley]

32. Hand us a laugh...

[RoeBear]

82. Hey Hans...

...How come no reply to Mr Benchley's arguement?
I guess he wins with the comeback of the year.

"Hand us a laugh..."

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[RoeBear]

86. And...

...Happy New Year to you also.

(Don't we all start over with a clean slate on Jan 1?)

[the_acid_one]

18. Dependant?

I think not, the main part of the amendment stands quite well on it's own.

If they meant "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", then I think it's obvious they would have said that.

I've only personally met one person who goes by the "collective interpretation", and he, like pretty much everyone else who uses the "collective" interpretation is in favor of banning everything that isnt a lever action rifle, or 6 shooter pistol. Basically, he's a coached anti-gunner.

Give Joe Blow or Jane Doe (someone who doesnt take part in political/gun control debates, and thus has no set opinion) on the street a peice of paper with the 2nd Ammendment on it and ask them "What does this mean?"

Pretty much ten times out of ten they'll say "It means the people have a right to own guns". If you have to read any deeper then Joe Blow or Jane Doe to find your "desired" meaning. Then you're not reading the Second Ammendmant, you're looking for a way to spin it to say what you want.

[slackmaster]

4. It's still dicta and that's how Reinhardt used it

It most certainly DOES matter to anyone who has a clue how the legal system works.

[hansberrym]

8. "IT" certainly does matter..

(quoting MrB)
Wants to pretend that these words don't exist: "Its proposal for a federal constitutional amendment,which was rejected in favor of the Second Amendment"

In other words, it don't fucking matter how much of it Reinhardt quoted or didn't quote. The Founding Fathers REJECTED it.
(end quote)


The "IT" that judge Reinhardt and yourself refer to are what is in question. The "IT" that judge Reinhardt says is "unambiguosly" an individual right is stated as "That the people have a right to bear arms...".


Doesn't "IT" have a MORE restricted meaning that the Second Amendment since the Second Amendment has no restrictive clauses on the RKBA?

The Founders did NOT reject "the people have a right to bear arms"
they used nearly the same phrasing and left off the qualifiers. Also the founders ADDED "keep".

[MrBenchley]

14. Cry us a river, hans...

Everybody is wrong but you, the scummiest lobby inn America, and a handful of fetishists....

[hansberrym]

16. Out of arguments so soon? It is not surprising...

But then Judge Reinhardt did not have to defend his "argument" in a back-and-forth exchange either. He had the luxory of posting his "argument" and then walking away.

[MrBenchley]

20. No more argument needed...

"He had the luxory of posting his "argument" and then walking away. "
I have that luxury as well.....

[the_acid_one]

21. Bench wins!

He found a spelling error!

If you can point out minor errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammer, then you win any discussion by default.

Facts? Figures? Common Sense? Forget it! All you need is a typo.

[demsrule4life]

24. Guess he shouldn't read posts

14&19, he would have to make inane comments to himself.

[hansberrym]

26. Happy trails...

(n/t)

[Wcross]

35. No need for further.....spell checking!

Cry us a river, hans...


"Everybody is wrong but you, the scummiest lobby inn America, and a handful of fetishists...."

"And where does either of those quotes say word one about any inndividual right?"

Gee, there is a spell checker available!

[MrSandman]

23. Did you mean..

..in America? Since it seems to be spell check day.

[MrBenchley]

31. Pity the poor gun nut

The courts are all lying...the newspapers are all lying...

[demsrule4life]

34. Maybe I'm half a gun nut

The courts are lying and the newspapers don't know shit what they are talking about.

[hansberrym]

36. Bench... didn't the newspapers of the day record that ...

Federal Gazette ,1789 (Tenche Coxe )
"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”



Furthermore, your passionate defense of Judge Reinhardt lies is heartworming.

[MrBenchley]

37. Too fucking funny...Tench Coxe dredged up again

Try to look slightly MORE desperate, hans....

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

39. Hahahahahahahaha....

Try any that carried the Federalist Papers...they discuss the Second entirely in terms of a well regulated state milita.

As for dishonesty....that's entirely on the RKBA side...else you wouldn't have to be trying to peddle that obscure goober Tench Coxe as Big Medicine.

[demsrule4life]

40. And the real kicker?

Who will remember you 150 years from now.

[MrBenchley]

45. Probably more than remember Tench Coxe now

Dems...

[hansberrym]

49. What rhymes with "Meglomania" ?

[hansberrym]

41. Then it should be very easy for you to provide a citation...

I wonder why you did not provide one?

[MrBenchley]

44. Because the Federalist Papers are easy to find, hans

You should know, considering how often you've tried to misrepresent them and wrench their meaning out of all sense....

[hijinks]

47. please tell me how this from fed29 fits with a 'collective' right

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. "

[hansberrym]

48. Then you should be able to find a citation in that rather large volume

to fit your argument. When you do, please post it.

[MrBenchley]

50. Been there, done that....

[slackmaster]

51. It takes no more time to post a link

Than to type "Been there, done that...."

That will cost MrB a $1 fine for ellipse abuse plus another $1 for failing to address a legitimate question.

[MrBenchley]

53. Been there, done that

[demsrule4life]

54. Been where and done what?

[hijinks]

55. translation

never have, never will

[MrBenchley]

57. Been there, done that

[hijinks]

58. hehe

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. "

[MrBenchley]

67. Heeheeheeheeheeheehee

If only somebody had kept reading

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. "

[BullDozer]

69. Well lookey here.....

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. "

Well, well, well, I guess that shoots down anyone who's been claiming that well regulated means controlled by lots of laws or some such rubbish. I know that one person has claimed something along the lines that he believes that well regulated means that gun control laws are constitutionally mandated and this just absolutely slams the door on that no doesn't it?

[MrBenchley]

70. Wow, dozer.....

It's hard to believe you could make an even more fatuous argument than before...and yet you've managed.

All this says is that "the great body of the yeomanry" (most folks) are not the well regulated milita of the second amendment, and are not expected to be. Now go sulk about it.


"well regulated means controlled by lots of laws"
Yes it does...and it does NOT mean unorganized, no matter how desperately you pout.

[BullDozer]

72. Dream on spinman

Well regulated means controlled by lots of laws, here is clear use of well-regulated that does not live up to that oftenmade claim that well regulated madates laws.

Yes it does...and it does NOT mean unorganized, no matter how desperately you pout

Thats a fine claim for you to try and make but I can cite US code that defines the unorganized militia, what do you have besides spin?

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States ...To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions...would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia...than to have them properly armed and equipped..."

How you can read that entire, much quoted in this thread, passage and believe that the object was anything other than to have the people at large armed defies logic.

Spell it out, if you think you can.

[MrBenchley]

73. The only spin around here is yours

and it's still as silly as it was months ago. Quick, what's missing in your dishonest abridgement?

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia "would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed , because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped..."



But go ahead and try to pretend "the people at large" is not a collective term. It is absurd as your attempt to pretend "unorganized" and well regulated are synonymous.

[BullDozer]

74. Keep spinning B

But go ahead and try to pretend "the people at large" is not a collective term

It's pointless, even Iverglass has repeatedly told you that you just don't get the whole collective vs individual thing.

The people at large is composed of individuals without individuals you have no people at large.

It's really not that hard to understand so I don't know why you refuse to get it.

Oh wait yes I do, because then yet another of your argumentative claims would fall to pieces.

[MrBenchley]

75. The only spin is yours, dozer

And it's even sillier than usual.

[BullDozer]

76. Proof?

All you have to do is prove that my arguement is wrong.

A shame you can't do it.

[MrBenchley]

77. Been there, done that

[BullDozer]

78. Right sure whatever

Been there, done that

You haven't otherwise you'd cite {b]exactly where you have done so.

You can go away now you've fallen back on "Been there, done that" more than once in this thread, you're done.

[hijinks]

81. sure he did

He bolded this which is speaking about manditory training not gun control:

"would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed"

while ignoring what surrounds it, namely a definition of well-regulated that means well trained NOT controled like the anti-gunners would like you to believe.

What he bolded is actually an argument against his usual dribble about well-regulated != unorganized.

[hijinks]

80. no you keep reading

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. "

If its a 'collective' right that idividuals can not excercise, who exactly would be assembled?

[hansberrym]

42. Still looking for that citation ?

Let me help:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=26508&mesg_id=26903&page=

[MrBenchley]

68. No, hans....I been there and done that

and know how dishonestly you spin when faced with fact. As that thread shows.

[hansberrym]

83. Fact is, the militia that Madison wrote of was a ...

"militia with near half a million of citizens with arms in thier hands."


NO spin is required on my part, but if you are going to insist that the Federalist only mentions "state militias" you are going to have to tell us which STATE MILITIA had half a million citizens.


While you are at it you might post at least one citation of the phrase "state militia" from the Federalist Papers.

[hansberrym]

43. I can't say whether Coxe was a goober or not, but he is ...

a LOT less OBSCURE than the non-existent newspaper accounts describing the Second Amendment as a "collective right".

At least Coxe existed, and his essays were in FACT published in the newspapers during the drafting and ratification of the BoR.

[MrBenchley]

46. Sure you can, hans...

He's an obscure goober who changed his opinion as often as others changed their shirts....

[MrSandman]

90. But sill existing