The Essence of our Debate

[DWC]

May be found in how we perceive our own individual rights and responsibilities as citizens of The United States of America and Trust in our fellow citizens to exercise their rights responsibly.

I support all civil rights of which my right to keep and bear arms is included. I also recognize my responsibility to exercise those rights within the framework of the Law. I trust in my fellow citizens to do the same.

There will always be criminals and crazies and they are responsible to society for their individual actions. Unless I become one of them, I am not and shall not suffer limitations beyond the Constitution because of them.

Why are we having this debate - really?

I sincerely ask for your thoughts.

Semper Fi,

[msongs]

1. the only reason a person needs a gun is protection from....gun owners lol nt

[SteveM]

3. Please let me correct your statement...

"the only reason a person needs a gun is protection from armed robbery, rape, home invasion, violent attacks and other life-threatening actions."

You see, these life-threatening actions can involve the use of any number of weapons, or none at all, other than the strength, power and numbers of attacker(s).

I hope you will not be offended when I improve upon your statement. Thanks.

[Starboard Tack]

160. So please explain why you need to carry a gun?

"the only reason a person needs a gun is protection from armed robbery, rape, home invasion, violent attacks and other life-threatening actions."

Armed robbery - what do you carry, besides your gun, worth robbing you for?
Rape - assuming you are an easy rape victim, there are lots better deterrents than a gun, which is more likely to get you killed. Probably the reason very few women tote.
Home invasion - has nothing to do with toting in public.

What else you got?

[iverglas]

227. ah, the best deterrents to rape

First, be male. (Pay no attention to the ensuing noise on this one.)

If you are unlucky enough not to be able to manage that one:

Second, have a deceased or otherwise absent father. And especially have no stepfather.
Third, do not have male relations your age or older with whom you are in any contact.
Fourth, attend an all-girls boarding school with no male faculty or staff, and do not leave campus.
Fifth, be an atheist.
Sixth, after completing your education, move to a planet inhabited only by women ...


The vast majority of women who are sexually assaulted know the offender.

The huge overwhelming majority of women who are sexually assaulted are not in danger of injury or death during the assault.

Normal people don't shoot/kill their parent, sibling, uncle, neighbour, date, flatmate, old friend, co-worker, employer, partner, former partner ... when their lives are not in danger.

[Glassunion]

264. Question. What is the source of your assertion?

"The vast majority of women who are sexually assaulted know the offender."

What is the percentage?

[iverglas]

285. the source of my assertion is called "common knowledge"

Calculate your own percentages.

Of course, you could find an answer right here in this forum, sometime in the last 10 days or so, as I recall.

I wouldn't want to say that you ignore things in this forum that you don't like, as I was just accused of doing ...

[Glassunion]

292. Common knowledge does not amount to statistics.

Sorry I missed the post, could you direct me to it?

[iverglas]

310. feigning stupidity

does not amount to stupidity. Fortunately for you.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

316. When the pro gun rights posters use anything other than footnoted stats, your rip

them and scorn "common knowledge". Not real consistent of you.

[iverglas]

317. when gun militants play dumb

I snicker.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

318. Actually when called on your hypocrisy you obfuscate and and make ineffective snide remarks

[SteveM]

320. As you well know...

What I carry, and its worth, is irrelevant: When someone threatens me with bodily harm, that is enough.

Other:

There are other deterrents, examples of which have been posted here. Guns are chosen by an increasing number of women, however. What sources do you have which suggest a "gun is more likely to get you killed?"

Be aware home invasion can occur upon the home-owner's arrival at residence, esp. as the door is unlocked.

[GKirk]

12. fail n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Nice to know you're a spetznaz ninja, capable of fending off hordes of super soldiers

while yourself armed with only a paperclip.

I am not. I am a tool using mammal, and I carry.

[Starboard Tack]

161. Love to see you fend off hordes of super soldiers with your wee pistol

What comic book world do you toters live in?

[Atypical Liberal]

63. How about this guy?

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/victim_to_muggers_say_hi_to_/id_38752

[rl6214]

95. Stupid post of the day?

So far.

[ileus]

2. Everyone should support the first freedom that enables us to enjoy all others.

[Buzz cook]

8. Yes the 1st amendment is pretty cool nt

.

[DWC]

17. Are there any of the other freedoms everyone should not support? n/t

[iverglas]

25. are the rest of us protected by the faeries?

Everyone should support the first freedom that enables us to enjoy all others.

I've got more of most rights and freedoms than you do, but I don't have the "right" to tote guns around or acquire/possess firearms without a licence, etc etc.

So I very plainly don't need any "right to keep and bear arms" to enable me to enjoy all the others. Nor does anyone in all the other places in the world that score higher than the USofA when it comes to freedom.

How do we manage this?

It must be the faeries. Who obviously like us best.

Wowsers, talk about not trusting one's fellow citizens. If one weren't armed against them, they and the evil governments they elected would be trying to take all one's rights and freedoms away from one.

Barrel o' monkeys, youse guys.

[Atypical Liberal]

64. Good will.

I've got more of most rights and freedoms than you do, but I don't have the "right" to tote guns around or acquire/possess firearms without a licence, etc etc.

So I very plainly don't need any "right to keep and bear arms" to enable me to enjoy all the others. Nor does anyone in all the other places in the world that score higher than the USofA when it comes to freedom.

How do we manage this?

You manage it through the good will of your government.

What would you do if that good will went away?

[iverglas]

70. what?

You manage it through the good will of your government.

I'm sorry, but that didn't even make sense. Have I been colonized by temporarily benevolent Martians?

What would you do if that good will went away?

Do my best to get a better government elected next time, I guess. We're working on things here. It may look bad that Harper got elected -- but he got only 40% of the vote, recall. We have taken a step toward wiping the duplicitous Liberal Party off the electoral map. That's a necessary job if the right wing is to be taken on seriously. Social democracy isn't built in a day!


I actually thought you were going to say "you manage it through the good will of the public" and I wasn't going to be able to disagree. Because that actually is how a society manages anything.

[Atypical Liberal]

79. Let me put it this way:

I'm sorry, but that didn't even make sense. Have I been colonized by temporarily benevolent Martians?

Let me put it this way: You manage to have a free society now solely through the benevolence of your government. Any citizens who have no means to resist oppression are at the mercy of their government should one day they decide to no longer respond to the will of the people.

Do my best to get a better government elected next time, I guess. We're working on things here. It may look bad that Harper got elected -- but he got only 40% of the vote, recall. We have taken a step toward wiping the duplicitous Liberal Party off the electoral map. That's a necessary job if the right wing is to be taken on seriously. Social democracy isn't built in a day!

You are making the assumption that elections will continue to work forevermore, and that politicians will remain beholden to the best interests of the governed.

What will you do if this is no longer the case?

I actually thought you were going to say "you manage it through the good will of the public" and I wasn't going to be able to disagree. Because that actually is how a society manages anything.

That is how free societies manage things.

[iverglas]

84. put it any way you want, it's still utter and complete crap

Let me put it this way: You manage to have a free society now solely through the benevolence of your government.

Utter and complete crap. Total garbage. Ridiculous nonsense. Dumb right-wing loonytarian idiocy.

My government is no more some alien entity than yours is. It is neither the giver nor the taker of anything. It is elected to govern, and does so unless and until a different government is elected.

Any citizens who have no means to resist oppression are at the mercy of their government should one day they decide to no longer respond to the will of the people.

Do you refer to the executive branch -- Liz II and the PM and his cabinet? I'd like to see HM take on my nephew. Harper's gained a lot of weight recently and wouldn't likely last long in a round of fisticuffs either. Mind you, he does have that Usher of the Black Rod to back him up.

The legislative branch? You seen any pix of our Senators lately? Retirement age is 75. The Commons might fare better, although that quadriplegic Conservative one might be more hindrance than help, unfortunately.

You are making the assumption that elections will continue to work forevermore, and that politicians will remain beholden to the best interests of the governed.

I'm making the "assumption" that people get what they elect -- and if they elect a government that wants to tread on me, then my problem isn't the government, it's the people who elected them. And since the gun militants are the ones who want to elect governments like that, well, you see where I'm going. "Arm" myself against the chance that they'll win? Yeah. Move to your phantasmagoric universe. I think not.

But maybe you're saying that Stephen Harper is planning things even direr than we now suspect, even worse than the right-wing assholes who voted for him had in mind. Not just setting up a two-tier health care system, but ... what, throwing people who object in jail? See, I can't even find the door into your universe. But if so, well, maybe he's counting on Black Rod to do the enforcing. Or Garry Breitkreutz's merry band of gunheads; I'm sure they'd be happy to, but, well, I really just am not all that worried, strange as you may say that seems to you.



typo fixed

[Atypical Liberal]

89. Really?

Utter and complete crap. Total garbage. Ridiculous nonsense. Dumb right-wing loonytarian idiocy.

My government is no more some alien entity than yours is. It is neither the giver nor the taker of anything. It is elected to govern, and does so unless and until a different government is elected.

I don't see how you can look at what our government is on the way to becoming and believe what you just said. I look at our country and see a government that has been becoming less and less representative of the people for nearly all of its existence. A government that has becoming more and more centralized and powerful with each passing year.

You hold the belief that elected governments will always be benevolent and allow elections to function. I do not hold that belief.

Do you refer to the executive branch -- Liz II and the PM and his cabinet? I'd like to see HM take on my nephew. Harper's gained a lot of weight recently and wouldn't likely last long in a round of fisticuffs either. Mind you, he does have that Usher of the Black Rod to back him up.

The legislative branch? You seen any pix of our Senators lately? Retirement age is 75. The Commons might fare better, although that quadriplegic Conservative one might be more hindrance than help, unfortunately.

As I'm sure you are well aware, tyrants seldom to their own dirty work. They usually have troops to do it for them.

I'm making the "assumption" that people get what they elect -- and if they elect a government that wants to tread on me, then my problem isn't the government, it's the people who elected them.

Again, you are making the assumption that elections will forevermore continue to allow you to alter your government to suit the will of the people. What will be your recourse should this not turn out to be the case?

[iverglas]

91. who elects your governments?

Need any more really be said?

Thank the gun militants and their leaders and financiers for the current situation, right? Wasn't it "gun control" that defeated Democrats?


As I'm sure you are well aware, tyrants seldom to their own dirty work. They usually have troops to do it for them.

Well, you can fantasize all you like about the US military doing whatever this dirty work might be. Just don't be projecting across the border, 'k?


Again, you are making the assumption that elections will forevermore continue to allow you to alter your government to suit the will of the people. What will be your recourse should this not turn out to be the case?

What will I do if pigs start flying by my window?

Yikes, I have to go make a contingency plan.

[Atypical Liberal]

93. No need to fantasize.

who elects your governments?

Need any more really be said?

Any more, I am starting to believe that the votes of the people don't really matter. Elections are an illusion to make people think they are active in making a choice. But money is now so powerful that it can counter democracy. In our country, the Forbes 400 richest Americans control as much wealth as one half of the country. Almost certainly those people have more effective power over policy than one half of the country.

The people with money are pre-selecting who the people get to vote for, and after they are elected they then control them.

I don't think we are quite at the point where democracy is totally destroyed, but I think we are close, and I think we are on that track.

Thank the gun militants and their leaders and financiers for the current situation, right? Wasn't it "gun control" that defeated Democrats?

Yes, according to folks like Bill Clinton, it did. The will of the people is not completely undermined yet. And, of course, conservatives love to use gun control, like religion, as a club to use on the electorate.

Well, you can fantasize all you like about the US military doing whatever this dirty work might be. Just don't be projecting across the border, 'k?

There is no need to fantasize. Look at any tyranny in history and see how many of the leaders got their hands dirty. Not many. Canada sounds like it is ahead of the curve as far as freedom is concerned, and I'm glad my children are Canadian citizens, as is my wife. But this does not mean that even Canada will be forever so.

Yikes, I have to go make a contingency plan.

Indeed, you should.

[iverglas]

97. nah, not according to folks like Clinton

Wasn't it "gun control" that defeated Democrats?
Yes, according to folks like Bill Clinton, it did.

If only, eh? (I guess the facetious nature of my question wasn't obvious.)

One of our departed colleagues (oh no, not another name I knew so well!) conveniently collected some actual quotations for us:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=242899&mesg_id=243068

"Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners. ... Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong."

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946. ... The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen."

"After the election I had to face the fact that ... supporters of responsible gun legislation ... simply could not protect their friends in Congress from the NRA. The gun lobby outspent, outorganized,
outfought, and outdemagogued them."

"I had grown up in the hunting culture in which its influence was greatest and had seen the devastating impact the NRA had had on the '94 congressional elections."

- Excerpts from Bill Clinton's book, "My Life".

Not "gun control". The gun lobby. And the NRA in particular.

Outdemagogued them. Bill's no fool, really.


So I guess my contingency plan should be to go take some courses, join a gun club, apply for a licence, buy some restricted weapons stuff -- or just go the regular route for some unrestricted stuff -- and tuck it away for when the tanks start rolling through Confederation Square.

I think I'll get some lunch instead.

My fear is of the sadly too large contingent of right-wing shitheads in my country, a set larger than but subsuming gun militants, exercising enough influence on the present government and in the next election that I actually have to be concerned about health care, social welfare, and things like that. I'm just not afraid that if I take to the streets to demonstrate about any of them I'm going to be mowed down or locked up. Sorry.

[Atypical Liberal]

100. NRA and gun control go hand in hand.

Not "gun control". The gun lobby. And the NRA in particular.

You wouldn't have a gun lobby without gun control.

So yes, gun control, namely the passage of the Assault Weapons Ban, galvanized the pro-firearm community and swelled the ranks of gun lobbying groups like the NRA.

So I guess my contingency plan should be to go take some courses, join a gun club, apply for a licence, buy some restricted weapons stuff -- or just go the regular route for some unrestricted stuff -- and tuck it away for when the tanks start rolling through Confederation Square.

I think I'll get some lunch instead.

Everyone should be free to make preparations as they may. Some choose lunch, some choose guns. I don't have a problem either way.

My fear is of the sadly too large contingent of right-wing shitheads in my country, a set larger than but subsuming gun militants, exercising enough influence on the present government and in the next election that I actually have to be concerned about health care, social welfare, and things like that.

And you are right to fear those things. If you want to see the end-game of what happens when monied interests control the government, just look south.

I'm just not afraid that if I take to the streets to demonstrate about any of them I'm going to be mowed down or locked up.

Yet.

[iverglas]

101. NRA and the right wing go hand in hand

If the NRA and its funders and followers gave a shit about anybody else, they would not be trying to defeat Democrats.

Gun control gives them a hook for their hat. Just as integrated housing did a few decades ago.


I'm just not afraid that if I take to the streets to demonstrate about any of them I'm going to be mowed down or locked up.
Yet.

Yeah, I'm not afraid of droids from Alpha Centauri coming to eat me, either. Yet.

[Atypical Liberal]

102. The NRA is a single-issue organization.

If the NRA and its funders and followers gave a shit about anybody else, they would not be trying to defeat Democrats.

The NRA is a single-issue organization. It is dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms. As such, it will move against any politician that does not do that, and, conversely, it will support any politician who does, including Democrats. In the last election, three of my Democratic candidates were the NRA-endorsed candidate.

Any Democrat can instantly earn the good graces of the NRA and turn it into a lobbying arm for themselves by embracing the right to keep and bear arms.

Yeah, I'm not afraid of droids from Alpha Centauri coming to eat me, either. Yet.

You may weigh the various risks you perceive and make your choices as you will.

Personally, I see the risks of rampant corporatism and unchecked concentration of wealth being a million times more likely to cause problems than droids from Alpha Centauri, as they are already doing so in my country.

But even if I lived in Utopia, it is foolish to believe that any government is unchanging and will forever be benevolent.

[iverglas]

103. I never stop loving this one

Any Democrat can instantly earn the good graces of the NRA and turn it into a lobbying arm for themselves by embracing the right to keep and bear arms.

And they could ignore guns and the NRA altogether and promise to outlaw abortion and they'd win every election hands down.

The NRA (NRA-ILA) is not a single-issue organization. It is an arm of the right wing, fighting the right wing battle on one of its many fronts. And you can say otherwise til you turn blue, I don't really care.

It also is not so stupid as not to know which side its bread is buttered on, and how to polish its image. Endorse many unsuccessful Democratic candidates, does it?

[Atypical Liberal]

104. The NRA is a single-issue organization.

And they could ignore guns and the NRA altogether and promise to outlaw abortion and they'd win every election hands down.

Of course, the right to keep and bear arms enhances liberty, while outlawing abortion restricts it, so it's obvious why they don't support outlawing abortion.

The simple fact is, politicians should be supporting reproductive rights, and they should be supporting the right to keep and bear arms. All the NRA cares about is the latter.

The NRA (NRA-ILA) is not a single-issue organization. It is an arm of the right wing, fighting the right wing battle on one of its many fronts. And you can say otherwise til you turn blue, I don't really care.

It also is not so stupid as not to know which side its bread is buttered on, and how to polish its image. Endorse many unsuccessful Democratic candidates, does it?

Like it or not, care or not, believe it or not, the NRA is a single-issue organization. They will support any candidate, including Democrats, that supports the second amendment. They do endorse Democrats, and they do give high marks to Democrats. Whether they win elections or not is not the concern of the NRA. The concern is their record for supporting the second amendment.

Any Democrat who wants NRA endorsement need only support the right to keep and bear arms. Those that don't do so at their own peril.

[iverglas]

215. really???

Any Democrat who wants NRA endorsement need only support the right to keep and bear arms. Those that don't do so at their own peril.

You mean ... like Barack Obama did in that quote you use as your sig line?

Maybe I missed the NRA-ILA's resounding endorsement of his candidacy, being up here in the North without access to the internet and all ...

[X_Digger]

219. No, lip service isn't all that's required..

But it's a good start..

Here is a list of NRA endorsed / donated to candidates for the 2010 election cycle..

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00053553&cycle=2010

2010 Democratic Campaign Donations:


House:
Altmire, Jason (D-PA)...............$9,900
Arcuri, Michael (D-NY)..............$2,000
Baca, Joe (D-CA)....................$3,000
Barrow, John (D-GA).................$9,900
Berry, Marion (D-AR)................$1,500
Bishop, Sanford D Jr (D-GA).........$7,600
Boccieri, John A (D-OH).............$6,100
Boren, Dan (D-OK)...................$4,950
Boswell, Leonard L (D-IA)...........$7,950
Boucher, Rick (D-VA)................$5,950
Boyd, Allen (D-FL)..................$9,900
Bright, Bobby (D-AL)...............$10,050
Cardoza, Dennis (D-CA)..............$4,950
Carney, Chris (D-PA)................$8,600
Chandler, Ben (D-KY)................$7,950
Childers, Travis W (D-MS)...........$6,950
Costello, Jerry F (D-IL)............$2,000
Critz, Mark (D-PA)..................$2,500
Cuellar, Henry (D-TX)...............$2,150
Davis, Lincoln (D-TN)...............$9,900
Dingell, John D (D-MI)..............$7,950
Donnelly, Joe (D-IN)................$6,950
Edwards, Chet (D-TX)................$6,950
Gordon, Bart (D-TN).................$1,000
Green, Gene (D-TX)..................$2,000
Halvorson, Deborah (D-IL)...........$5,950
Heinrich, Martin (D-NM).............$2,000
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (D-SD)...$7,450
Higgins, Brian M (D-NY).............$1,000
Hill, Baron (D-IN)..................$6,950
Holden, Tim (D-PA)..................$9,900
Jones, Vernon (D-GA)................$1,500
Jordan, James D (R-OH)..............$3,000
Kagen, Steve (D-WI).................$8,950
Kanjorski, Paul E (D-PA)............$7,450
Kind, Ron (D-WI)....................$2,000
Kissell, Larry (D-NC)...............$9,900
Kratovil, Frank M Jr (D-MD).........$9,900
Marshall, Jim (D-GA)................$6,950
Matheson, Jim (D-UT)................$5,000
McIntyre, Mike (D-NC)...............$6,950
Mollohan, Alan B (D-WV).............$4,950
Murphy, Scott (D-NY)................$2,500
Murtha, John P (D-PA)...............$2,500
Nye, Glenn (D-VA)...................$5,100
Obey, David R (D-WI)................$3,500
Ortiz, Solomon P (D-TX).............$2,000
Owens, Bill (D-NY)..................$2,000
Perriello, Tom (D-VA)...............$5,950
Peterson, Collin C (D-MN)...........$1,500
Pomeroy, Earl (D-ND)................$4,500
Rahall, Nick (D-WV).................$6,950
Ross, Mike (D-AR)...................$5,000
Ryan, Tim (D-OH)....................$3,000
Salazar, John (D-CO)................$3,000
Shuler, Heath (D-NC)................$8,450
Skelton, Ike (D-MO).................$6,950
Space, Zachary T (D-OH).............$9,900
Stupak, Bart (D-MI).................$1,000
Taylor, Gene (D-MS).................$4,500
Walz, Timothy J (D-MN)..............$3,000
Wilson, Charlie (D-OH)..............$6,100
Total: $335,700

Senate:
Dorgan, Byron L (D-ND)..............$2,500
Ellsworth, Brad (D-IN)..............$9,900
Manchin, Joe (D-WV).................$4,950
Reid, Harry (D-NV)..................$4,950
Total: $22,300

Additional Independent Expenditures to Democratic candidates:

Altmire, Jason..............$10,346
Boren, Dan...................$8,175
Boyd, Allen.................$14,377
Cardoza, Dennis..............$4,322
Childers, Travis W...........$4,518
Davis, Lincoln...............$6,539
Dingell, John D..............$3,626
Halvorson, Deborah...........$4,216
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie...$8,711
Hill, Baron....................$850
Holden, Tim..................$8,594
Kilroy, Mary Jo................$595
Lentz, Bryan...................$595
Matheson, Jim................$8,704
Mollohan, Alan B.............$6,675
Murray, Patty................$6,706
Rahall, Nick.................$2,591
Ross, Mike...................$6,627
Shuler, Heath...............$23,161
Skelton, Ike.................$8,796
Space, Zachary T.............$4,610
Strickland, Ted.............$25,143
Taylor, Gene.................$3,201
Total: $171,618

Grand Total: $529,618



2010 Democratic Endorsements:
Alaska
Scott Kawasaki
Jim Folsom, Jr.

Alabama
Jan Cook
Bobby Bright
Tammy L. Irons
Tom Butler
Zeb Little
Roger Bedford, Jr.
Lowell Barron
Larry Means
Phil Poole
Marc Keahey
T.D. "Ted" Little
Billy Beasley
John "Jody" Letson
Ken Guin
William E. Thigpen, Sr.
Johnny Mack Morrow
Randy Hinshaw
Butch Taylor
John Robinson
Jeff McLaughlin
Craig Ford
John G. "Jack" Page III
Steve Hurst
Richard Laird
Richard Lindsey
James M. "Jimmy" Martin
Demetrius C. Newton
Oliver Robinson
Alan Harper
Elaine Beech
Thomas E. Jackson
Betty Carol Graham
Alan C. Boothe
Terry Spicer

Arizona:
Rebecca Rios
Barbara McGuire

Arkansas:
Mike Beebe
Shane Broadway
Dustin McDaniel
Mike Ross
John Paul Wells
Robert Thompson
Paul Bookout
Bobby J. Pierce
Johnnie J. Roebuck
Randy Stewart
Monty Betts
James McLean

California:
Dennis Cardoza
Joe Baca
Lou Correa
Alyson Huber
Cathleen Galgiani

Colorado:
John Salazar
Betsy Markey
Lois Tochtrop

Connecticut:
Paul R. Doyle
Andrew Maynard
Joe Aresimowicz
Edward Moukawsher
Tom Reynolds
Steven Mikutel
Linda Orange
Claire Janowski
Roberta Willis
Jeffrey Berger
David Aldarono
John Mazurek
Bruce Zalaski
Emil Altobello
Terry Backer
Kevin Ryan

Delaware:
David B. Mcbride
Bruce C. Ennis
Nancy W. Cook
George H. Bunting, Jr.
Robert F. Gilligan
William J Carson, Jr.
Edward Bradford Bennett
Robert E Walls
John C. Atkins

Florida:
Allen Boyd
Bill Montford
Leonard Bembry
Debbie Boyd
Dean Cannon
Darren Soto
Ron Saunders

Georgia:
Sanford Bishop
Jim Marshall
John Barrow
Lester G. Jackson
Curt Thompson
Doug Stoner
Tim Golden
reddie Powell Sims
George Hooks
Hardie Davis
Steve Henson
Barbara Massey Reece
Rick Crawford
Alan Powell
Glenn Baker
Pedro Pete Marin
Hugh Floyd
Helen G. Sistie Hudson
Mike Cheokas
James A. Bubber Epps
Mack Jackson
Bob Hanner
Gerald E. Greene
Bob Bryant
Ellis Black
Amy Carter

Hawaii:
Shan S. Tsutsui
Jerry Leslie Chang

Idaho:
Mary Shepherd

Illinois:
Debbie Halvorson
Jerry Costello
Michael Bond
Toi W. Hutchinson
Arthur Wilhelmi
Deanna Demuzio
Michael W. Frerichs
Kevin A. McCarthy
Jack D. Franks
Patrick Verschoore
Careen M. Gordon
Frank J. Mautino
Lisa M. Dugan
Michael K. Smith
Bob Flider
Daniel V. Beiser
Jay C. Hoffman
Thomas Holbrook
Dan Reitz
John Bradley
Brandon W. Phelps

Indiana:
Brad Ellsworth
Joe Donnelly
Trent Van Haaften
Baron Hill
Timothy Dale Skinner
James Lewis
Richard D. Young, Jr.
Lindel O. Hume
Craig R. Fry
Scott D. Pelath
Charles Chuck Moseley
Dan Stevenson
Chester F. Dobis
Ron Herrell
oe Pearson
Dennis Tyler
Terri Jo Austin
Scott Reske
F. Dale Grubb
Clyde Kersey
Nancy A. Michael
Peggy Welch
Sandra Blanton
Kreg Battles
Terry Goodin
Robert J. Bischoff
David Cheatham
Paul J. Robertson
Steven R. Stemler
Russ Stilwell
Bob Deig
Gail Riecken
John F. Barnes

Iowa:
Chet Culver
Leonard Boswell
Amanda Ragan
Bill Dotzler
Wally E. Horn
Dennis H. Black
Daryl Beall
Matt McCoy
Becky Schmitz
Keith A. Kreiman
McKinley D. Bailey
Sharon Steckman
Brian J. Quirk
John W. Beard
Andrew Wenthe
Bob Kressig
Doris J. Kelley
Roger Thomas
Ray Zirkelbach
Kirsten Running-Marquardt
Tyler Olson
Geri D. Huser
Mark Smith
Kevin McCarthy
Eric J. Palmer
Nathan K. Reichert
Phyllis Thede
Jim Lykam
Larry K. Marek
Curt Hanson
Jerry A. Kearns
Kurt Swaim
Michael J. Reasoner
Paul Shomshor

Kansas:
Steve Six
Dennis McKinney
Doug Gatewood
Shirley Palmer
Jerry Williams
Tom Burroughs
Melanie Meier
Melany Barnes
Janice Pauls

Kentucky:
Ben Chandler
J. Dorsey Ridley
Jerry P. Rhoads
David E. Boswell
Robin L. Webb
R.J. Palmer II
Mike Reynolds
Fred Nesler
Mike Cherry
Melvin B. Henley
Will R. Coursey
John A. Arnold, Jr.
John C. Tilley
Jim Gooch, Jr.
Jim Glenn
Tommy Thompson
Brent Yonts
Martha Jane King
Dottie J. Sims
Wilson Stone
Johnny W. Bell
Terry Mills
Jimmie Lee
Jeff Greer
Charles W. Miller
Steven Riggs
Tim Firkins
Robert R. Damron
Dennis Horlander
Larry Clark
Rick W. Rand
Linda Howlett Belcher
Kent Stevens
Royce W. Adams
Charlie Hoffman
Arnold R. Simpson
Dennis Keene
Mitchel B. Denham, Jr.
John Will Stacy
Sannie Overly
Don Pasley
Richard D. Henderson
Ruth Ann Palumbo
Thomas M. McKee
Susan Westrom
Fitz Steele
Rick Nelson
Ted "Teddy" Edmonds
W. Keith Hall
Leslie A. Combs
Gregory D. Stumbo
Hubert Collins
Tanya Pullin
Rocky Adkins
Kevin P. Sinnette

Maine:
Mike Michaud
Bill Diamond
Troy Jackson
John Martin
Herbert Clark
Benjamin Pratt
Stephen Hanley
Michael Shaw
John Tuttle, Jr.

Maryland:
Frank Kratovil
Norman R. Stone Jr.
Katherine Klausmeier
Roy Dyson
John C. Astle
James Ed DeGrange
Jim Brochin
Kevin Kelly
John P. Donoghue
Mike Weir Jr.
Eric Bromwell
Steven J. DeBoy Sr.
ames E. Malone Jr.
Rudolph C. Cane
Norman H. Conway

Massachussetts:
James Timilty
Michael Rodrigues
Steven Baddour
ames Eldridge
Marc Pacheco
Jennifer Flanagan
Richard Moore
Stephen Brewer
Demetrius Atsalis
William Pignatelli
David Sullivan
William Straus
Joyce Spiliotis
Barbara L'Italien
Stephen Kulik
Joseph Wagner
Angelo Puppolo, Jr.
John Scibak
James Arciero
James Miceli
Colleen Garry
William Galvin
James Vallee
Christine Canavan
Stephen DiNatale
Anne Gobi
Geraldo Alicea
Paul Kujawski
Harold Naughton, Jr.
John Binienda, Sr.
Jennifer Callahan

Michigan:
Gary McDowell
John Dingell
John J. Gleason
Richard LeBlanc
Jennifer Haase
Kate Ebli
Alan Lewandowski
Terry L. Brown

Minnesota:
Lori Swanson
Tim Walz
Collin Peterson
Jim Oberstar
Leroy Stumpf
Rod Skoe
Tom Saxhaug
David Tomassoni
Thomas Bakk
Keith Langseth
Dan Sparks
Linda Scheid
Charles Wiger
Kathy Saltzman
David M. Olin
Bernie L. Lieder
Brita Sailer
Tom Anzelc
Loren A. Solberg
John Persell
Tom Rukavina
Anthony Sertich
David Dill
Mary Murphy
Tim Faust
Paul Marquart
John Ward
Al Doty
Al Juhnke
Larry Hosch
Andrew Falk
Lyle Koenen
Terry Morrow
Kory Kath
Robin Brown
Jeanne Poppe
Andy Welti
Joe Atkins
Will Morgan
Denise R. Dittrich
Jerry Newton
Julie Bunn
Marsha Swails

Mississippi:
Travis Childers
Gene Taylor

Missouri:
Ike Skelton
Frank Barnitz
Wes Shoemyer
Ryan McKenna
Tom Shively
Paul Quinn
Ed Schieffer
Kenny Biermann
Joe Aull
Jason Grill
Sam Komo
Timothy Meadows
Ron Casey
Joseph Fallert
Michael Frame
Linda Fischer
Luke Scavuzzo
Steve Hodges
Terry Swinger
Tom Todd

Montana:
Mitch Tropila
Robert Mehlhoff
Kathy Swanson

Nevada:
Ross Miller
Moises Denis
Mark Manendo
Marilyn Kirkpatrick
Olivia Diaz
James Ohrenschall
Elliot Anderson
John Oceguera
Kelvin Atkinson
Richard Carrillo
David Bobzien
Debbie Smith
Marcus Conklin
Irene Bustamante
John Cahill

New Mexico:
Gary King
Martin Heinrich
Harry Teague
Ben R. Lujan
Sandra Jeff
Eliseo Lee Alcon
Andrew Barreras
Patricia Lundstrom
Henry "Kiki" Saavedra
Bill O'Neill
Dona Irwin
Andy Nunez
Jeff Steinborn
Rodolfo Rudy Martinez
Nick Salazar
Debbie Rodella
Roberto "Bobby" Gonzales
Brian Egolf
Joseph Cervantes
Nate Cote
John Heaton
Thomas Garcia

New York:
Scott Murphy
Bill Owens
Michael Arcuri
Darrel J. Aubertine
David J. Valesky
Aileen M. Gunther
Bill Magee
Robin Schimminger
Mark J. F. Schroeder

North Carolina:
Mike McIntyre
Larry Kissell
Heath Shuler
Doug Berger
A. B. Swindell
Daniel Clodfelter
Steve Goss
John J. Snow, Jr.
Timothy L. Spear
Arthur Williams
William L. Wainwright
Dewey L. Hill
William Brisson
Joe Tolson
Michael H. Wray
Jim Crawford
Chris Heagarty
Jimmy L. Love, Sr.
Nelson Cole
Pryor Gibson
Lorene T. Coates
L. Hugh Holliman

North Dakota:
Earl Pomeroy

Ohio:
Ted Strickland
Richard Cordray
Linda Bolon
Kenny Yuko
Matt Patten
Stephen Dyer
Matt Szollosi
Matt Lundy
Ron Gerberry
Mark Okey
Lorraine Fende
Jay Goyal
Dan Dodd
Debbie Phillips
Lou Gentile

Oklahoma:
Bret Burns
Dan Boren
Sean Burrage
Neil Brannon
Roger Ballenger
John Sparks
Randy Bass
Dennis R. Bailey
Glen Bud Smithson
Mike Brown
Wade Rousselot
Ed Cannaday
Brian Renegar
R. C. Pruett
Wes Hilliard
Steve Kouplen
Danny Morgan
Cory T. Williams
Ken Luttrell
Samson R. Buck
Joe Dorman
Seneca D. Scott
Eric Proctor
Scott Inman

Oregon:
Kurt Schrader
Arnie Roblan
Brian Clem
Jeff Barker
Brad Witt
Mike Schaufler

Pennsylvania:
John Yudichak
Lisa Boscola
Richard Kasunic
Jim Ferlo
Timothy Solobay
Flo Fabrizio
John Hornaman
Mark Longietti
Chris Sainato
Jaret Gibbons
Robert Matzie
Dom Costa
Joseph Markosek
Anthony Deluca
Marc Gergely
Harry Readshaw
Bill Kortz
Nick Kotik
Jesse White
Peter Daley
Bill Deweese
Deberah Kula
John Pallone
oseph Petrarca
James Casorio
Ted Harhai
Bryan Barbin
Frank Burns
Gary Haluska
Camille George
Mike Hanna
Scott Conklin
Edward Staback
Todd Eachus
Mike Carroll
Neal Goodman
Tim Seip
John Siptroth

Rhode Island:
Dominick Ruggerio
Frank Ciccone III
James Doyle II
Michael Pinga
Walter Felag, Jr.
M Teresa Paiva-Weed
Frank Devall, Jr.
Roger Picard
John Tassoni, Jr.
Marc Cote
Beatrice Lanzi
Hanna Gallo
Michael McCaffrey
William Walaska
Erin Lynch
V Susan Sosnowski

South Carolina:
Paul L. Agnew
Harold Mitchell, Jr.
Boyd Brown
Mike Anthony
Jimmy Neal
Herb Kirsh
David Weeks
Laurie Slade Funderburk
Ted Martin Vick
Jackie E. Hayes
Denny Woodall Neilson
Jim Battle
Lester Branham
Cathy Harvin
James Smith
J. Todd Rutherford
Lonnie Hosey
Harry L. Ott, Jr.
Patsy G. Knight
Vida Miller
J. Seth Whipper
Anne Peterson Hutto
Bill Bowers
Kenneth F. Hodges

South Dakota:
Stephanie H. Sandlin
Jason Frerichs
David Sigdestad
Spencer Hawley
Mitch Fargen
Peggy Gibson
John C. Willman

Tennessee:
Lincoln Davis
Roy Herron
Doug Jackson
Lowe Finney
Dennis Ferguson
Jim Hackworth
Leslie Winningham
George W. Fraley
ohn Mark Windle
Henry D. Fincher
Mike McDonald
Stratton Bone
Eddie Bass
David A. Shepard
Judy Barker

Texas:
Silvestre Reyes
Chet Edwards
Solomon Ortiz
Henry Cuellar
Gene Green
John Whitmire
Stephen Frost
Mark Homer
Jim McReynolds
Joe Deshotel
Craig Eiland
Ryan Guillen
Solomon Ortiz, Jr.
Abel Herrero
Yvonne Gonzalez Toureilles
Eddie Lucio, III
Armando Martinez
Aaron Pena, Jr.
Patrick Rose
Chente Quintanilla
Tracy King
Joe Heflin
Robert Miklos
Kirk England
Allen Vaught
David Leibowitz

Utah:
Jim Matheson
Neal Hendrickson
Christine Watkins

Vermont:
Jeb Spaulding
Peter Welch
Claire Ayer
Dick Sears
Matthew A. Choate
Jane Kitchel
Bill Carris
Jeanette White
Alice W. Nitka
Willem Jewett
Alice Miller
Kitty Beattie Toll
Jim Condon
Kathleen C. Keenan
Floyd Nease
Peter Peltz
Shap Smith
Larry Townsend
John S. Rodgers
Maxine Grad
Tony Klein
Michael J. Obuchowski
Carolyn W. Partridge
John Moran
Alice M. Emmons

Washington:
Steve Conway
Tim Sheldon
Steve Hobbs
Dean Takko
Brian E. Blake
Kevin Van De Wege
Dawn Morrell
Troy Kelley
Christopher Hurst
Kathy Haigh
Fred Finn
Kelli Linville
Pat Sullivan

West Virginia:
Joe Manchin
Nick Rahall
Orphy Klempa
Larry Edgell
Evan Jenkins
H. Truman Chafin
Ron Stollings
Erik Wells
Mike Green
Ronald "Ron" Miller
Joseph "Joe" Minard
Walt Helmick
John Unger
Randy Shwartzmiller
Tim Ennis
Roy Givens
Michael Ferro
Scott Varner
Dave Pethtel
Dan Poling
Dale Martin
Brady Paxton
Kevin Craig
Jim Morgan
Doug Reynolds
Don Perdue
Richard Thompson
Larry Barker
Greg Butcher
Ralph Rodighiero
Josh Stowers
K. Steven Kominar
Harry Keith White
Daniel Hall
Linda Goode Phillips
Clif Moore
Gerald Crosier
Mel Kessler
Virginia Mahan
Rick Moye
William "Bill" Wooton
Thomas Campbell
David Perry
John Pino
Margaret Staggers
Mark Hunt
Doug Skaff Jr.
Sharon Spencer
David Walker
Brent Boggs
Sam Argento
Joe Talbott
Bill Hartman
Peggy Donaldson Smith
Mary Poling
Samuel Cann
Ron Fragale
Richard Iaquinta
Tim Miley
Mike Manypenny
Mike Caputo
Linda Longstreth
Tim Manchin
Charlene Marshall
Stan Shaver
Harold Michael
Tiffany Lawrence

Wyoming:
Kathlyn Sessions
Saundra Meyer
Stan Blake
Michael Gilmore

Wisconsin:
Ron Kind
Steve Kagen
Russ Decker
Kathleen Vinehout
Amy Sue Vruwink
Marlin Schneider
Chris Danou

[iverglas]

225. sad commentary there, isn't it?

Who does that leave for decent people to vote for??

Your evidence that the right wing is winning the battle by taking over the little alternative there once was is only evidence that might makes right.

Big whup.


I wonder what % of NRA-ILA funding went to those Democrats ...

I wonder how many of them were not the front-runners ...

[iverglas]

226. by the way, you seem to have evaded the question

It's still sitting there, if you care to answer it some day.

[X_Digger]

234. Care to elaborate? You replied to yourself there..

In you mean your question in #215 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=443127&mesg_id=447868)

really???

Yes, really. But not just lip service. 'support'.. ie, not vote against the interests of those that exercise it, not claim that banning 65M handguns is okay, not be fine with the 'assault weapons' fraud..

On the plus side, he's came out for 'enforcing the laws we have on the books', with limited changes (which I suspect are just a bone thrown for the Brady camp followers.

I'd consider him at just under neutral.. a bad past record, but seeing the light- either because he's honestly changed his mind, or because he knows the political fallout was do more harm than good.

[iverglas]

286. for the hard of seeing / short of attention span

Any Democrat who wants NRA endorsement need only support the right to keep and bear arms. Those that don't do so at their own peril.

You mean ... like Barack Obama did in that quote you use as your sig line?


I haven't seen an answer. Except for the insinuation that Obama was paying lip service only to your brazen idol.

If you want to come out and say that, then perhaps you could explain your intent in using it as your sig line.

[X_Digger]

287. Umm, check your eyes.. not in *my* sig line. n/t

[petronius]

297. Hey, cool tank!

Thanks for sharing... :thumbsup:

[X_Digger]

305. Thanks, it's a labor of love :) n/t

[iverglas]

311. oh dear; I asked a question in post 215

and you answered my post.

Try to announce your presence next time I ask someone else a question and you answer, will you?

[X_Digger]

313. I'm sure you'll extend the same courtesy, right? n/t

[X_Digger]

233. Depends on the cycle..

We took a hit in 94, thanks in large part to the 'assault weapon' fraud (it was 90/10 that year).. now it's back up to 65/35, and getting better every year.

Why would a 'right-wing' organization spend money on any party but their purported own one?

[Name removed]

288. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gravity556]

326. If you re-read the prior posts to yours,

the NRA-ILA puts their support behind candidates whose voting records support gun rights. Obama's voting records show that he voted in favor of firearms restrictions.

[Rabblevox]

4. You have completely mis-framed the debate...

Very few (except for the extreme fringe) wish to deny the right to bear arms. But that does not extend to unrestricted licence. Your rights do not extend to owning SAM's, machine guns, or anti-tank weapons.

I own guns, grew up in a gun family, and qualified expert on the M-16 and sharpshooter on the .45 in the service. And yet I think it's entirely reasonable to have waiting periods, background checks, close the gun-show loopholes, and put reasonable limits on what types of weapons and ammo can be purchased.

Personally, I think the right to bear arms should be treated like driving. It is considered a right by most adult Americans, and is granted freely to almost any adult after passing a few basic tests. But drive drunk or reckless, and that right can be revoked for a period of time.

To me, that's the real debate...why so many in the gun-owning community are resistant to any kind of reasonable regulation.

Semper Paratus,

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. I note you've declared the regulations you desire as "reasonable".

I, too, am in favor of "reasonable regulation".

Problem is, my definition of "reasonable" differs from yours. Is my opinion on the subject of equal weight as yours?

If not, why not?

[Rabblevox]

6. So what would you define as "reasonable"?

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. In short: like Vermont's. I find their regulations just as "reasonable" as you find yours.

Perhaps New Hampshire's, as an alternative.


And I have some hard empirical evidence for feeling that way: Both states are in the bottom (lowest) 10 for murder rates,

a city in New Hampshire (Manchester) has lower murder and violent crime rates than two cities of similar size and

economic profile in "Brady Campaign-friendly" Massachusetts (Fall River and New Bedford).

Note: this is referenced at the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports website:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

[iverglas]

27. "Is my opinion on the subject of equal weight as yours?"

Yeah: zero weight.

The only "opinion" that matters in these instances is the authoritative opinion: the opinion of the final arbitrator, commonly called a supreme court.

In a liberal democracy, individuals are free to advance their opinions as to what is "reasonable regulation" of firearms and as to everything else under the sun.

Argue yours til the cows come home. It may be more or less worthy of consideration in the ears of different people, for varying reasons.

The only "weight" it will carry is in its persuasiveness.

Sadly, some people are more persuaded by sound and fury than by facts and reason, but that's how it goes in a liberal democracy. Not all discourse in a liberal democracy is democratic.

[TPaine7]

30. Wrong

Let the "final arbiter" rule beyond what the people will accept and see what happens. When the "final arbiter" said that blacks had no rights that whites were bound to accept, the people started a war. It was a long struggle, but finally one of the last vestiges of official racism--draconian gun control--is being dismantled.

I am glad that the Supreme Court isn't the final arbiter in a real democracy.

[iverglas]

37. remedial reading class cancelled, was it?

Let the "final arbiter" rule .... blah blah blahdy blah blah

Who gives a crap?

I was addressing the question of the "weight" of someone's opinion.

What I said was:

The only "opinion" that matters in these instances is the authoritative opinion: the opinion of the final arbitrator, commonly called a supreme court.

Did you read me saying that anyone had to accept that opinion, as in: not seek to have it changed?

I don't think you did. In fact, I know you didn't.

Read Lawrence at all?

I have. Give it a shot: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html

The US Supreme Court flat out reversed an earlier decision of its own.

Since I know that (and you could have assumed I knew it), why would I have said something that amounted to "supreme court decisions can never be changed", as you purport to think I did?

Childish nonsense.


I am glad that the Supreme Court isn't the final arbiter in a real democracy.

I'm glad I live in a liberal democracy, where I actually know that there are no "final arbiters". Does might make right? Certainly the fact that the winning side in your civil war thing was right (at least comparatively) didn't mean that it would win. What if it had lost? Who would have been the final arbiter then?

When it comes to opinions, the only one that has weight is the opinion of the entity that has the authority to issue opinions that must be adhered to ... unless and until they are, one way or another, reversed.

But you knew that, just as you knew it was what I was saying.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

50. "I was addressing the question of the "weight" of someone's opinion."

Are you a Klingon?

[TPaine7]

76. Childish nonsense.

If only. If you were a child, this BS would be excusable.

The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter. And not because it reversed itself.

The weight of your interlocuter's opinion, in a legal sense, springs from the fact that he, unlike you, is part of the people. And in this particular case, he is part of the majority of the people who disagree with you on the RKBA. They are, at any given time, the final human arbiter. They are the ones who ultimately decide whether a law, ruling or policy will stand.

That doesn't make them right, It doesn't make them wrong. It doesn't mean they won't change their minds. It just means they're the final authority. Always.

It's not this government of the Supreme Court, by the Supreme Court and for the Supreme Court.

I would say you knew that but, well, I'm not so sure. After all, you think you could have helped America with our Second Amendment "box" so it's hard to form a solid opinion about your "reality."

[iverglas]

77. you really seem to have missed the whole great big point

After all, you think you could have helped America with our Second Amendment "box" ...

Not "could have". Could. You keep trying to represent that offer as having something to do with Heller. It didn't. So you can stop now.

[TPaine7]

78. ...

:rofl:

Go ride your unicorn across the rainbow bridge, iverglas.

BTW, if I misunderstood your "reality", it's your own fault:

iverglas (1000+ posts) Wed May-28-08 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. I figure DC should have hired me


Hell, I would have done it for free.

I just see this second-amendment thing as a box that the entire US can't get itself out of. All anybody seems to see is the view inside the box, not what's on the outside of it. Of course, that's political thought in the US in a nutshell ...

The past tense comes from your quote. It seems you think you can still save us.

It appears that your "view of reality" is reaching the advanced stages.

[Starboard Tack]

164. I wouldn't include the US as a "liberal democracy" anymore. Not after 2000

[oneshooter]

13. Questions need answers...................

"And yet I think it's entirely reasonable to have waiting periods, background checks, close the gun-show loopholes, and put reasonable limits on what types of weapons and ammo can be purchased."

Waiting periods: The recent mass murder in Norway was planned for several years. How long a waiting period or "cool off time" would you want? 7days,14,30days? Do you have proof that they work?

Background checks: All FFL Dealers are required by federal law to perform a call in check on each and every firearm sale. Even to the point that a pawn shop must do a call in on a person retrieving a firearm that they had pawned.

Gun Show loopholes: Again any FFL dealer is required by law to perform a call in background check on any firearm sale. What you are ranting about is "private sales" which are between two individuals. A call in background check is not required by Federal Law. In fact the Feds can not control sales between two people within the same state, only sales between people in separate states. The call in system can not be used by non FFLs.

Define your idea about what "reasonable limits on what types of weapons and ammo can be purchased." are to you. And why you believe they will work.

Thank you.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[GreenStormCloud]

15. What do waiting periods accomplish? N/T

[TheWraith]

16. You demonstrate a couple of obvious logical fallacies.

For one, equating gun ownership with driving, in suggesting that one should need to have a license in order to own a gun. Let's put aside for the moment the fact that we've been raising unholy hell lately over attempts to require people to get a license in order to vote, and that not doing so with the right to a firearm is a big of a double standard.

Newsflash: you don't need a license to drive. You can buy a vehicle and drive it all you want on your own turf. You need a license to drive IN PUBLIC.

"To me, that's the real debate...why so many in the gun-owning community are resistant to any kind of reasonable regulation."

And most people who will say this believe "reasonable regulation" should be defined by people who don't like guns, don't like gun owners, and see "reasonable regulation" for guns in the same way the fundamentalist right wing sees it for TV.

I'll give you some credit for knowing what you're talking about, but you also undermine your case when you talk about how it's "reasonable to have waiting periods, background checks, close the gun-show loopholes, and put reasonable limits on what types of weapons and ammo can be purchased." Again, this nebulous definition of "reasonable," but you fail to note that all of those things are already law, with the exception of the "gun show loophole" which doesn't exist.

The entire couching of "reasonable regulations" is a sham, designed to try and sound thoughtful while accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being unreasonable, and insinuating that they want machine guns on every corner and armor piercing bullets being handed out to gang members at the local convenience store.

[DWC]

21. I had no intention to "frame" the debate at all

My intent in the OP was to address, in general:

1. How you feel about freedom from infringement of any Civil Right including the 2nd amendment, and
2. The level of Trust you hold in your fellow citizens to exercise their Civil Rights within the confines of Constitutionally compliant Law.

I am simply seeking the philosophical basis of the debate.

Semper Fi,

[We_Have_A_Problem]

59. Don't know if you know this...

...but its perfectly legal to own machine guns, anti-tank weapons, and SAMs.

Expensive - but legal.

Why should the mere ownership of ANY kind of arm be forbidden by law? If the US military uses it, the people should have access to it as well. Whether or not you can afford it is something else entirely.

[DissedByBush]

202. Sanity check

Apply restrictions to another right and see if they still sound okay:

Waiting periods: Before you can speak, post on the Internet, or otherwise publish your speech, you must have a waiting period to make sure you don't say anything rash.

Background checks: Before you can speak or publish, we must check your background to ensure your speech will not likely constitute a danger to others

Close the gun-show loopholes: Speech between individuals will still be allowed, unless you are in a public forum for the advancement of freedom of speech, in which case your speech will be regulated.

Put "reasonable limits" on what words you may use. We will edit the dictionary to ensure people don't have access to words that could be used by criminals to do harm. Saying these words, even in a way that does no harm to others, will be punishable by jail time.

Does it still sound okay to you?

[gejohnston]

246. even if you could, how would you afford it

unless you are a long lost Koch brother.

Your rights do not extend to owning SAM's, machine guns, or anti-tank weapons.

IIRC, the reason NFA did not ban private ownership of machine guns was that the bill's sponsors did not think a ban would survive a court challenge. What amuses me about the SAM/nuke/tank canard is that, you can legally own a tank or a howitzer. Of course you have to jump through the hoops and have Koch level of disposable income to buy and maintain it. Even if you could own a ICBM, where would you put it?

Which begs the question, why spend 20 mill on a tank that can be taken out by a 800 dollar hand held rocket?

Even before NFA was passed, private machine gun ownership was almost nonexistent outside of the mob and bank guards. The average gun store never carried one. A Thompson SMG was about $6K in today's money. In pre minimum wage America, you are not going to blow that much money for something that is kind of useless for practical things like putting venison on the table. Few were used in crimes, other than the mob and the few high profile roving robbers like Dillinger. While the mob could afford them (thanks to Prohibition) Dillinger, Nelson, and alike had to be content with stealing theirs from police and national guard armories, which tended to have lax security at the time.

[Buzz cook]

7. We disagree

The gun control debate is not about civil rights. That is just a diversion foisted on us by the right.

The gun control debate is about crime. The right refuses to allow serious debate about how to deal with the American crime problem. Treating drugs as a social and public health problem is unheard of. Instead our debate centers on how severely to punish malefactors. Does poverty and lack of education breed crime? Then we should build more prisons, because we certainly won't address poverty or lack of education.
Is racism and cultural chauvinism a block to effectively dealing with crime? Why then we elect and support racists and cultural chauvinists.

Basically if it's not "tough on crime" and doesn't feed the prison industrial complex we don't hear about it.

So what does that leave the lick spittle cowardly left as an option? Gun control. So that becomes a wedge issue the right uses by exploiting the fear and paranoia that many people have about CRIME.

So the gun control debate is about how owning guns is the solution to preventing crime.

Somewhere in hell John Olin is laughing at us.

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. Owning a gun can, *at best*, alleviate or prevent the symptoms of crime.

A few of which are: The victim(s) getting robbed, assaulted, or murdered.


Some of the right act as if the use of a firearm can stop crime. Well, no, it might stop a crime, but not all crime.

Some of the left act as if prohibiting the us of a firearm can stop crime. This is equally untrue.

[PavePusher]

11. But it is a Civil Right.

Your attempt to deflect away from that is irrelevent.

[Atypical Liberal]

65. Gun rights should not be about crime at all.

The gun control debate is about crime.

It shouldn't be. I hate how the entire issue of the right to keep and bear arms revolves around the actions of criminals.

Yes, criminals will use guns to commit crimes. So what? What does this have to do with the 98% of gun owners who don't commit crimes with their firearms? What does keeping arms in the hands of the civilian population as a final protection against oppression have to do with crime?

Nothing.

As far as I'm concerned, the actions of criminals should never be used as an excuse to curtail the rights of everyone else. I don't really care how many people are killed by criminals using firearms. It's not a valid excuse to me to say, "We must prohibit everyone from having these things because someone might commit a crime with them."

Moreover, when you look at the people who are committing murders with firearms, almost invariably they are people with extensive past criminal histories. So the only way gun control should be about crime is by taking steps to make sure criminals can't have firearms without compromising the rights of everyone else.

[SteveM]

321. Actually, the debate over guns IS about civil rights...

It seems the "right-left" thing was popularized by modern-day gun-controller/banners sometime over the last 40 years.

You are correct about crime and its causes. Frankly, the Democratic Party has in effect abandoned efforts to resolve the "crime issue," and fallen to that age-old addiction: Prohibition; "we've" gone along with drug prohibition, and made much ado about gun prohibition. In large measure, "progressives" can only blame themselves for this; not because of what the GOP has done, but because we have done so little to wrest control of our party back from the DLC centrists who offer nothing but platitudes for the last 40 years.

I would disagree with you on this: "So the gun control debate is about how owning guns is the solution to preventing crime."
Assuming you are not being sarcastic, this is the over-and-over straw-man meme constructed by controller/prohibitionists in this forum. Guns are an imperfect means of self-defense, this includes concealed-carry. It is NOT social policy.

But controller/banners MUST repeat this over and over so that they can later point to the failure of the "policy" when crime rates go back up. It is intellectually corrupt, and they know it. But they have little else, other than continued culture war.

Don't you wish they would use half that energy in attacking GOPer Right Wingers instead of fellow progressives?

[DWC]

14. OP Restated

My intent in the OP was to address in general

1. How DUers feel about freedom from infringment of any Civil Right including the 2nd amendment, and
2. The level of Trust DUers hold in their fellow citizens to exercise their Civil Rights within the confines of Consitutionally compliant Law.

I seek honest input on those two (2) questions.

Semper Fi,

[Atypical Liberal]

18. Like you said - there is a distrust of the individual.

May be found in how we perceive our own individual rights and responsibilities as citizens of The United States of America and Trust in our fellow citizens to exercise their rights responsibly.

I support all civil rights of which my right to keep and bear arms is included. I also recognize my responsibility to exercise those rights within the framework of the Law. I trust in my fellow citizens to do the same.

There will always be criminals and crazies and they are responsible to society for their individual actions. Unless I become one of them, I am not and shall not suffer limitations beyond the Constitution because of them.

Why are we having this debate - really?

I believe you hit the nail on the head. One of the strengths of the Progressive movement is the belief in the ability to do things as a collective that benefit the collective that would be difficult for individuals to achieve on their own. We support collective bargaining. We support collective protection of the Environment. We support collective social services like health care and Social Security. We support collective services like libraries, roads, courts, schools, and fire and police protection. The essence of being Progressive is working as a collective.

But self-defense is about empowering the individual.

This runs directly counter to the way Progressives tend to think about solving problems. Collectivists look at the failures of individuals, even a few of them, and this reinforces their distrust of the individual and reinforces their faith in the collective.

I'm convinced this is why firearm rights are so stunted in Democratic circles, and why they are so entrenched in conservative circles.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. Collectives versus individuals.

There is strength in numbers. When one individual oppresses another, the family and friends of the oppressed often unite to help protect and support the oppressed from the oppressor. Analogously, when one group oppresses another, peoples and groups of peoples in sympathy with the oppressed unite to protect and support them. Millennia of human experience enforce the effectiveness of this method. For numerous reasons, some related and others not, individuals have grouped into families, families into tribes, etc. I use the word oppress because I view assaults as a form of oppression.

Human history has a predominant thread cataloging the efforts of the oppressed to throw off oppression. Whenever that has been successful, parades have been held, heroes have been recognized and villains vanquished. Governments have assumed the roles of hero and villain. Recently, in last few hundred years, a political spectrum has developed within most governments. This is thanks to that same collective mentality that has enabled victory over oppression being employed to campaign for office. Our spectrum of left and right is an example.

Candidates ally themselves with the party they espouse to give and receive support. IMHO there is as much blame spread by both parties as there is message and support. I see both parties as dishonest in their messages. There is no denying that decades of progress have been made by collective effort. There is also no denying that individuals and their rights often suffer due to progress. The fundamental intellect, adaptability and persistence of humans is all that stands between freedom and tyranny.

Adopting an attitude that progress can always be made while rights are spared is dangerous. As Sam Adams has said:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

Unlike many countries, the US does not espouse the principle of parliamentary supremacy. The courts here often declare laws unconstitutional, sometimes for reasons of conflicts with the Bill of Rights. It is an "animating contest" to be sure.

[iverglas]

29. how fascinating

Unlike many countries, the US does not espouse the principle of parliamentary supremacy. The courts here often declare laws unconstitutional, sometimes for reasons of conflicts with the Bill of Rights.

I assume this doesn't happen in, oh, Canada?


I love quotes from rich white guys:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

If only he were here to day to say that to residents of inner-city neighbourhoods with inadequate incomes to provide their families with decent food and housing, poor schools and other public services, and unlimited access to an unlimited supply of firearms for anybody who wants 'em.

If people in those communities called for limits on access to firearms (as they tend to do), why, they would obviously be lovin' wealth better than liberty!


What point exactly were you intending to make with that little quote?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. To respond in order:

"how fascinating" - thanks :)

"I assume this doesn't happen in, oh, Canada?" - You are free to assume what you wish about Canada.

"I love quotes from rich white guys:" - You are free to love whatever quotes you want.

"...they would obviously be lovin' wealth better than liberty!" - I wouldn't know. What everyone should know is that rights and liberties need not be sacrificed in the name of helping the poor, improving education or bettering public services. Suspending the rights of the accused makes the work of the police easier, but that's not a good idea. Making government more effective while sacrificing rights is not a worthy objective.

[iverglas]

39. you may have missed the point

... it can just be so hard to tell.

You said:

Unlike many countries, the US does not espouse the principle of parliamentary supremacy. The courts here often declare laws unconstitutional, sometimes for reasons of conflicts with the Bill of Rights.

In 30 years, the courts in Canada have issued more decisions striking down laws that conflict with the constitutional Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio.

You might not have known that. If you do, I would have thought you would not set yourself up for looking like you don't.

The principle of parliamentary supremacy is retained in the "notwithstanding" clause in the Charter. If we had a government use that clause to interfere in the exercise of rights and freedoms, we'd have elected ourselves a dictatorship, and invoking the notwithstanding clause would really be the least of our worries.

What everyone should know is that rights and liberties need not be sacrificed in the name of helping the poor, improving education or bettering public services.

Sadly for you, the exercise of rights and liberties must indeed sometimes be restricted in that name.

You've heard of "taxes"? Just for starters.

Making government more effective while sacrificing rights is not a worthy objective.

Off with you to fight those taxes things now.

When you come back, don't bother trying to frame the issue to suit your agenda.

I said nothing about "making government more effective", nor did you when you started this.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

49. No I haven't :)

But frequently there isn't a "point" to arguing with pro-control folks.

[DWC]

55. Excellent and insightful

Please expand on "Adopting an attitude that progress can always be made while rights are spared is dangerous."

This fairly represents my attitude. To me, it basically represents the positive evolution of society within the confines of our Constitution. Why is it dangerous?

I am not attempting to justify or support my attitude; simply seeking more input on your thought provoking statement.

Semper Fi,

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. Progress is not always possible.

A key aspect of building a better mousetrap is to recognize the fundamental limitations in the entire system. It would be foolish and shortsighted to believe that government's current form in the US will not undergo substantial change as time goes on.

From my perspective, government's first duty is to recognize and defend the immutable rights of the people. Making social progress needs to take a back seat. Sometimes that progress is slow, sometimes it is at a stop. It is not the function of government to solve ALL of society's problems.

I have characterized legislators as analogous to carpenters who have only a hammer. When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. :)

[DWC]

57. We are in the same ball park;

In the same ball game; and on the same ball team.

For me, your thoughts have made this entire thread worthwhile.

Thank You and

Semper Fi,

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

58. You're welcome...

...and back at you. :)

[DWC]

23. Great post! Thanks! n/t

[jpak]

22. Extrajudaical vigilante killings are not a "Constitutional Right"

yup

[We_Have_A_Problem]

60. Nope - they arent.

Nobody ever said they were.

[DWC]

62. Finally! Something on which we agree :) n/t

[iverglas]

24. what a tautology

I support all civil rights of which my right to keep and bear arms is included. I also recognize my responsibility to exercise those rights within the framework of the Law. I trust in my fellow citizens to do the same.

So? You think you're responsible for obeying the law. Big whup.

You trust your fellow citizens to obey laws. Nonsense. If everyone were on the honour system, there would be no police, courts, prisons ...

If you mean you trust them to obey the law and if they don't they should be punished ... what are you saying? A great big nothing, that's what.

There will always be criminals and crazies and they are responsible to society for their individual actions.

Actually, no, they are not. Society may punish them for their actions if their actions violate laws.

Unless I become one of them, I am not and shall not suffer limitations beyond the Constitution because of them.

You really need to look up "tautology" and stop thinking that when you have produced one you have done a bold stroke of business.

Criminals are, by definition, people who break laws. You're subject to the same laws -- limitations on the exercise of your rights and freedoms, in many cases -- as they are. You aren't punished unless you break them. Duh.

Maybe you're saying there should be limitations on criminals' exercise of rights and freedoms when they have broken no laws, but not on yours?

Maybe you're saying there may be no limitations on your exercise of rights and freedoms? Maybe you've never wanted to advertise snake oil as a cure for cancer, or do any of the many other things that fall under that "freedom of speech" rubric and yet are prohibited. Many people do want to. Is it wrong to subject them to those limitations -- or does it only matter when it's about something you want to do?

What an absolutely pointless, meaningless bit of bumph you have served up here.

Just trust everybody to exercise their rights and freedoms "responsibly", and you don't need any laws at all. Sounds like an excellent proposition.

[Atypical Liberal]

66. Why so obtuse?

So? You think you're responsible for obeying the law. Big whup.

You trust your fellow citizens to obey laws. Nonsense. If everyone were on the honour system, there would be no police, courts, prisons ...

If you mean you trust them to obey the law and if they don't they should be punished ... what are you saying? A great big nothing, that's what.

It's a simple enough concept. We trust others to obey the law, and they should be punished if they don't. But, importantly, we aren't going to restrict the right of people to own firearms just because some people might break the law with them.

And that is saying a great deal.

It's a fundamental, irreconcilable difference in opinion over firearms.

You want no one to be able to own handguns or semi-automatic rifles because someone might use them to do bad things.

Our side accepts that in a free society with relatively free access to firearms bad people will from time to time use them to do bad things. We accept this for several reasons, but one of the biggest is that we know that even if your vision came to pass and handguns and semi-automatic rifles were outlawed, bad people would continue to use them to do bad things.

[iverglas]

71. you folks and your crystal balls

... we know that even if your vision came to pass and handguns and semi-automatic rifles were outlawed, bad people would continue to use them to do bad things.

You can't explain how they'd get them, but they'd continue to use them.

I don't suggest that all handguns and semi-automatic rifles would go "poof" the day that private possesion was prohibited. I'm sure you understand that. I also don't suggest that no crime would ever again be committed by people using them. I'm sure you understand that too.

You just don't seem to understand that handguns and semi-automatic rifles do not drop like lawn darts from the sky, and that interfering in criminal access to them actually will reduce their prevalence and the prevalence of crimes committed with them.

There really just is no other explanation for the huge variance between the rate of firearms robbery in the US and the rates of firearms robbery in Canada and every other comparable country. We don't have stupider criminals. We have criminals with less access to firearms, and in particular handguns.


Our side accepts that in a free society with relatively free access to firearms bad people will from time to time use them to do bad things.

You left out the important bit: to do bad things to other people. People you don't give a toss about, for your own various reasons.

Your side "accepts" risks to other people, and I don't think those other people have ever actually hired you for that job.

[Atypical Liberal]

80. It doesn't take a crystal ball.

You can't explain how they'd get them, but they'd continue to use them.

It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that with modern firearm technology now easily 100+ years old, with plans on the internet where anyone can make a copy of a STEN submachine gun with some pipe and a file, with easily half a billion or more firearms currently in circulation, with organized criminal organizations building submarines to traffic narcotics, that criminals will continue to have easy access to firearms for at least the next 500 years. Even if a law were passed outlawing them all tomorrow.

You left out the important bit: to do bad things to other people. People you don't give a toss about, for your own various reasons.

Your side "accepts" risks to other people, and I don't think those other people have ever actually hired you for that job.

Oh get off the high horse.

Society makes tradeoffs that expose other people to risk all the damn time. As a society, we have all decided that automobiles are OK for people to drive around in, in spite of the fact that people screw up with them and kill 30,000 or more people every year. It's not that we don't care about the people who die from car accidents, it's that we as a society recognize that people need to drive around and even though most people will do it safely, some people will not, and that is just the price we have to pay for having such free access to cars.

There are countless things that are dangerous and people die from every year but we as a society have decided it's OK for society to continue to have access to.

Our society has decided that it is acceptable for some people to die from firearm misuse rather than disarm everyone. It's not that no one cares what happens to victims of firearm crime, it's that people deserve the right and means to defend themselves from criminals without resorting to a physical contest of strength. We recognize that most people will safely bear arms and some few will not, but this is just the price we all pay for allowing relatively unfettered access to firearms.

The bottom line is firearms are viewed as far more useful and necessary than they are harmful.

The majority of people in this country share this view, which is why our laws continue to become more firearm friendly every passing year.

[iverglas]

85. and you still can't explain

why all that firearms technology and all those pipes and files haven't resulted in the streets of, oh, Canada being awash in home-made guns.

with organized criminal organizations building submarines to traffic narcotics, that criminals will continue to have easy access to firearms for at least the next 500 years.

The narcotics are COMING FROM somewhere. Obviously effective domestic firearms control in one country requires effective domestic firearms control everywhere or as universally as possible -- what do you think my point is about firearms from the US coming to Canada? The flow is from supply to demand. You don't ignore one end.

Our society has decided that it is acceptable for some people to die from firearm misuse rather than disarm everyone.

The elements of your society that have the upper hand have decided that it is acceptable for other people who don't matter to die from firearms crime rather than take measures to reduce access to firearms by people who use them for that purpose.

It's not that no one cares what happens to victims of firearm crime, it's that people deserve the right and means to defend themselves from criminals without resorting to a physical contest of strength.

No, it isn't. No matter how many people you can persuade, by whatever means, to believe you.

[Atypical Liberal]

88. Yes, I can.

and you still can't explain why all that firearms technology and all those pipes and files haven't resulted in the streets of, oh, Canada being awash in home-made guns.

Probably because manufactured firearms are much more readily available.


The narcotics are COMING FROM somewhere. Obviously effective domestic firearms control in one country requires effective domestic firearms control everywhere or as universally as possible -- what do you think my point is about firearms from the US coming to Canada? The flow is from supply to demand. You don't ignore one end.

The United States has been fighting the war on drugs for some 40 years, including attempts to intervene on the supply side. It has been fruitless.

Now I don't think this is a very good analogy to firearms - no one is actually addicted to firearms.

Also I am not saying that banning firearms would not have an impact on firearm crime rates. Of course it would. Machine guns have been effectively outlawed since 1986. Hardly any crimes are committed with them.

The elements of your society that have the upper hand have decided that it is acceptable for other people who don't matter to die from firearms crime rather than take measures to reduce access to firearms by people who use them for that purpose.

However you wish to paint it, our legislature has been making more and more permissive firearm laws since at least 1986.

It's not that no one cares what happens to victims of firearm crime, it's that people deserve the right and means to defend themselves from criminals without resorting to a physical contest of strength.

No, it isn't. No matter how many people you can persuade, by whatever means, to believe you.

Well, this just highlights the fundamental disagreement between people like you and people like me. To me, it is absolutely abhorrent to think that someone would be forced to engage in a physical contest of strength against an assailant because society did not trust him to own the tools with which he could have more easily defended himself.

When people like Brandon Kruse are faced with three people trying to beat him up, they should be able to have the choice to use a firearm to defend themselves with, even if this means that other people can use guns to do bad things to other people.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

[iverglas]

92. "probably"??

and you still can't explain why all that firearms technology and all those pipes and files haven't resulted in the streets of, oh, Canada being awash in home-made guns.
Probably because manufactured firearms are much more readily available.

Not probably, not possibly, not -- just not. Because manufactured firearms are NOT readily available. They are acquired at huge effort and expense -- by theft and by smuggling. They are expensive. They move around in the hands of organized criminals. Not street thugs or druggies. So if it's so darned easy and cheap to make the things, why isn't this happening? Because criminals in Canada don't want guns? Because street thugs and druggies wouldn't be happy to have someone offer them guns at reasonable prices? Right.


The United States has been fighting the war on drugs for some 40 years, including attempts to intervene on the supply side. It has been fruitless.

You do know that's one theory.

Now I don't think this is a very good analogy to firearms - no one is actually addicted to firearms.

As I've been saying for some years now.


However you wish to paint it, our legislature has been making more and more permissive firearm laws since at least 1986.

Your legislatures have also been demolishing union rights and burdening women's reproductive rights and doing a whole lot of other unsavoury things during the same period. Strange coincidence.


As Thomas Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

As I've said, I don't actually care what Thomas Jefferson said.

If Thomas Jefferson had been a rural woman with no economic resources abused by a gun-owning spouse, or an African-American kid in an urban community who has no security (physical safety in constant jeopardy largely because of the unchecked presence of firearms, inadequate housing, miinimal to no education and employment opportunities, ...), I might be more interested.

If Thomas Jefferson had ever even dreamed, let alone seen, any of these things, I might be mildly interested.

As far as I can tell, Thomas Jefferson was never actually exposed to any inconveniences at all, attending on anything at all. So why what he said about his preferences in that regard should matter to anyone, I've never been able to guess.



typo fixed ...

[Atypical Liberal]

94. Ding!

They move around in the hands of organized criminals.

There you go. Anyone who wants one can get one.

There is no doubt that Canada's restrictive policies reduce gun crime. But you are never going to eliminate them, particularly here in the United States. And all that will happen is law-abiding people who are victims of violent crime will have no means to fight back without engaging in a contest of physical strength with their attacker.


Your legislatures have also been demolishing union rights and burdening women's reproductive rights and doing a whole lot of other unsavoury things during the same period. Strange coincidence.

It's not a coincidence at all. For at least the last 30 years in this country, certainly since Reagan, wealth in this country has been rapidly concentrating at the top, while for the vast majority of Americans wages and wealth are stagnant. As this wealth concentrates at the top, the people at the top have ever-growing power to influence government policy to enhance and protect their financial interests. This means demolishing union rights.

Women's reproductive rights (i.e. religion) and gun rights are just distractions that the right uses as a wedge issue to sway ignorant voters.

As I've said, I don't actually care what Thomas Jefferson said.

I provided the quote because it expresses my sentiment concerning firearm ownership quite succinctly. Obviously you care about what I say or you wouldn't be replying to my posts.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences caused by firearms being freely available than those caused by no law-abiding person having access to them. Most Americans share this sentiment. America is, at heart, a land still steeped in the idea of individualism and freedom of the individual, including the freedom to defend oneself, one's family, and one's property. If you choose to ignore the words of Jefferson then you choose to ignore what motivates this entire debate.

As far as I can tell, Thomas Jefferson was never actually exposed to any inconveniences at all, attending on anything at all.

Yeah, only the small threat of death for treason for his troubles of helping craft a new nation. I'm sure there were no inconveniences for that effort at all.

[iverglas]

98. you beggar belief

Can the deceit be more blatant?

I actually SAID:

Because manufactured firearms are NOT readily available. They are acquired at huge effort and expense -- by theft and by smuggling. They are expensive. They move around in the hands of organized criminals.

and you quote me as saying:

They move around in the hands of organized criminals.

and pretend that you are entitled, on the basis of that, to say:

There you go. Anyone who wants one can get one.

How do you sleep at night?

If you think there's any reason for me to read anything else you said, try retracting that false statement first.

[RSillsbee]

26. Notable Quote - Suzanna Gratia-Hupp

Notable Quote - Suzanna Gratia-Hupp
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."

– Suzanna Gratia-Hupp

[iverglas]

28. notable one-trick pony Republicans

Got any progressive / liberal / d/Democratic sources you'd like to quote?

Didn't think so.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. Quotes:

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

John F. Kennedy: "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."

[iverglas]

40. ah, fine words

And they did indeed mean that in 2011 these guys would be on the side of the gun militants and their agenda.

So we're up to 1960. I'll keep reading and see how the rest of the class is doing.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

46. You do that.

[rl6214]

96. Barack Obama

"The Second Amendment and court precedent guarantee an individual's right to bear arms"

[iverglas]

99. rl6214-come-lately

That one's been tried.

A (plainly pandering) statement of apparent fact hardly comes up to the standard of demagoguery that Suzanna whatsit spewed, does it?

I'm looking for real gun-militant garbage like that. I'm looking for somebody to quote something that actually supports all the crap strewn around this forum. Did Obama say that anybody who isn't a known criminal should be permitted to parade around with pistols in their pants?

Hell, *I* would say what Obama said. Big whup.

[rl6214]

107. Don't like the answer to move the goal posts why don't you.

Typical

[iverglas]

228. tell it to X-digger

post 219.

Enjoy.

[iverglas]

41. uh oh

Nice pic here:

http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/U1598418/hubert-h-humphrey-at-rally

"Hubert H. Humphrey at Rally
During a tour of the west side, Vice-president Hubert H. Humphrey speaks to a group of his supporters who also support stronger gun control laws."

Uh oh.

:rofl:

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

45. Uh oh

[RSillsbee]

33. Since you asked

The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." -Hubert Humphrey-

Not exactly a quote but:

Giffords has strived to develop a reputation as a strong defender of the Second Amendment. Her campaign website says Giffords is a longtime gun owner who joined an amicus brief in 2008 to ask the Supreme Court to uphold gun ownership rights in Washington, D.C

And of course the founding liberal

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.

[DWC]

35. My Favorite

"Conceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made."

Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790)

Semper Fi,

[DWC]

105. Noah Webster said

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." --Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

[Glenn Vardy]

224. Webster Quote In Context

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." --Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

To a brainwashed gun-hugger, "the whole body of the people" isn't referrence to a collective "body," it means each gun-owner. And the "force" referred to won't be a well regulated militia, it'll be a gun-owner and a few of his buddies. Sound about right?

[SteveM]

322. Doesn't sound right...

"each gun-owner" constitutes the people; in this case perhaps 80,000,000 - 100,000,000 "buddies."

BTW, well-regulated meant and means a citizen with an arm suitable for military service, and with the knowledge of how to use it.

Now it sounds right.

[Glenn Vardy]

205. And the rest.

"Conceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made."

Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790)

"...The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded."

If you want to claim that this quote sheads light on the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment, you could just as easily take from it that it proves the Second Amendment is a "militia" amendment dealing with the "security of a free State."

[X_Digger]

207. "like private citizens"...

Nice tendentious interpretation.

It's clear from this quote that Roger Sherman expected private citizens to have the right to bear arms unconnected to militia service.

Do you deny it?

Is there any other interpretation that fits?

'citizen', 'his', 'his'..

Let me guess, 'his' was a euphemism for 'the state', right?

*snort*

[Glenn Vardy]

212. Like "States" and "their rights?"

Let's put this into perspective.
He "concieved" it a right. This DOESN'T mean that THAT'S what the Second Amendment protects. There's nothing in the quote linking his belief about self-defence with the Second Amendment. On the other hand, the Second Amendment DOES refer to the security of the "State" and to a well regulated "militia" and this quote is taken from a debate on the organization of the militia.

[X_Digger]

213. That crazy Roger Sherman, all out on his own.. he was an outlier

*snort*

Keep tap-dancing, it's getting fun to watch.

[Glenn Vardy]

223. No serious comment?

That crazy Roger Sherman, all out on his own..

No. Your problem is, in your minds, you link every comment about self-defence to the Second Amendment WITHOUT anything in the comment linking it to the Second Amendment.

[X_Digger]

235. Hint: we're talking about whether or not the folks at the time expected the right to encompass

individual use.

We've already determined that the second amendment is a limit on government, yes? So the second amendment cannot, by definition (see the preamble) proscribe the rights that it protects.

I'm getting dizzy watching you spin.

[Glenn Vardy]

240. Individual use?

we're talking about whether or not the folks at the time expected the right to encompass individual use.

No. You need to find evidence that the FOUNDERS/FRAMERS *INTENDED* to secure a right for individuals to own guns for private use unconnected to the militia.

If the purpose of the Second Amendment is what YOU think, there would have been dozens of objections about the Constitution not securing a natural right to own guns. The objection that was raised time and time again in the State Conventions was that Congress had the power of providing for the arming and disciplining of their State militia forces and could destroy those forces through neglect. If the States took measures to keep their militia armed and disciplined in such a situation, they said it could be misconstrued by Congress as an act of rebellion because those powers were delegated to them. Read the preamble to the BoR. This is an extra safeguard/check against an abuse of power, not a natural right to own a gun.

[X_Digger]

241. The right predated the constitution..

It didn't pop fully formed and framed out of their heads. At that point, there'd been almost a century of 'natural rights' philosophy.

Why don't *you* read the preamble again. The bill of rights is a restriction on government. It doesn't set the limit of rights.

If the purpose of the Second Amendment is what YOU think, there would have been dozens of objections about the Constitution not securing a natural right to own guns.

You're assuming your conclusion again. *sigh*

(You're assuming that it doesn't secure an individual right.)

[Glenn Vardy]

245. Story

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." - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution.

So, according to Joseph Story, an amendment to the constitution was ADOPTED to calm fears that the states were losing their RIGHT to arm their own militia forces in the event that Congress neglected to do so. WHICH amendment is that?

[X_Digger]

248. Federalists v Anti-Federalists

Story was commenting on the powers of congress. I noticed you left out the commentary preceding your section..

§ 1198. The next power of congress is, "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."

That's the context of Story's remarks. Commentary on Article I, Section 8. The balance of power between the federal and state governments was hard fought. That Story should present his side in that debate should surprise nobody. That adds nothing to the question of the scope of the right.

[Glenn Vardy]

249. Adopted Amendment

Story was commenting on the powers of congress

Yes, I know. I've already said that the objections raised about the Constitution at the time were that Congress had power over their militia forces, not that a right to own a gun wasn't protected. Which is the amendment that was "adopted." Btw, the words in (brackets) are Story's, not mine.

"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."

[X_Digger]

251. Irrelevant to the context.

Whether it was Madison's change to Article I, section 8 (the separation of the selection of officers by the states) or the second amendment, neither has bearing on the right so protected.

Funny how you claim that others have taken statements out of context.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Glenn Vardy]

255. Out of context quotes

Funny how you claim that others have taken statements out of context.

If you think I've taken statements out of context, explain how.
If you think that I'm wrong in the posts where I've put quotes in their proper context, explain how.

We're supposed to believe that the Second Amendment is about a right to own guns for private purposes unconnected to the militia. But isn't it funny how all of the distorted quotes about arms are lifted from speeches about the militia? That's why they're all one-liners, to hide the true context.

Here's one of 'em that's taken out of context even though the militia is referred to:

"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers...." - George Mason.

"The whole people" doesn't mean "every individual," it means "all classes." Here's the rest:

"But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty." - George Mason.

What's this about "granting exclusion?" From exercising a right to own a gun? No, from "militia duty."

[Glenn Vardy]

253. Scope?

That adds nothing to the question of the scope of the right.

All individual rights differ IN THEIR APPLICATION. The right to a trial by jury differs from freedom of religion. Not everyone can request a speedy trial by jury, it's just available to you if you're charged with a crime. Collective rights also differ in THEIR application and this is why there's confusion.

With the Fourth Amendment, *IF* you belong to the body that holds the right, you're protected against unreasonable searches. But that doesn't mean that you can also claim the militia amendment to apply to you, personally.
"The people" in the Second Amendment is used in the same way as it's used in "The people v. Joe Criminal." No individual or groups of individuals other than the WHOLE body of "the people" can put "Joe Criminal" on trial. Likewise, with the Second Amendment, no Individuals or groups of individuals other than the body of "the people" can claim the right to be theirs, personally. There's a system in place. If you're an able-bodied male between the ages 16-45, you're eligible to be called to serve on behalf of "the people" in the same way as individuals are called to serve on a jury in the trial of "Joe Criminal."

[X_Digger]

254. Does the ninth protect an individual right to privacy? n/t

[Glenn Vardy]

256. Privacy?

Does the ninth protect an individual right to privacy?

You keep asking this question even though I've shown how "the people" in the ninth is a collective body retaining collective rights. If you want to make a point about the ninth amendment and privacy, make it now and quit the big build up.

[X_Digger]

257. If "the people" in the ninth is a collective.. is there an individual right to privacy?

Simple question, yet you refuse to answer.

I wonder why that is..

[Glenn Vardy]

258. Present your golden nugget

I don't know.

Sketches of American Policy
By Noah Webster.

"This association of all the individuals of a community is called the body politic or State... The members, spoken of COLLECTIVELLY, are called PEOPLE, spoken of SEVERALLY, they may be called CITIZENS..."

Bouviers Law Dictionary:
BODY POLITIC: " ..As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take COLLECTIVELY the name, of PEOPLE, or nation; and INDIVIDUALLY they are CITIZENS..."

THAT'S what the FRAMERS meant when THEY used the terms. They didn't use the word "people" in those legal documents the same way that we'd use the word when inviting a few "people" round for a party. If any judge thinks they did, he's wrong.

[X_Digger]

262. Go read Roe. I'm not doing your homework for you.

Hint, yes there is an individual right to privacy-- even with 'the people' being in the text of the ninth.

[friendly_iconoclast]

263. Gotta love these "constitutional scholars" that have never gone to law school, or....

filed an amicus brief....

[Glenn Vardy]

268. Constitutional scholars

Gotta love these "constitutional scholars" that have never gone to law school, or filed an amicus brief

Well, there are such 'well known' scholars/historians who have filed amicus briefs saying that "to bear arms in a coat" means "to carry a gun in your coat pocket."

[Glenn Vardy]

278. What the FOUNDERS meant.

Sketches of American Policy
By Noah Webster.
"This association of all the individuals of a community is called the body politic or State... The members, spoken of COLLECTIVELLY, are called PEOPLE, spoken of SEVERALLY, they may be called CITIZENS..."

Bouviers Law Dictionary:
BODY POLITIC: " ..As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take COLLECTIVELY the name, of PEOPLE, or nation; and INDIVIDUALLY they are CITIZENS..."
-------------------------
THAT'S what the FRAMERS meant when THEY used the terms. They didn't use the word "people" in those legal documents the same way that we'd use the word when inviting a few "people" round for a party. If any judge thinks they did, he's wrong. The judges in Roe may have applied the ninth to an individual member of the body politic (I haven't looked), but "the people" is STILL a reference to all the members of the body politic collectively. You haven't grasped the idea that not all collective rights are applied in the same way. You think it's a black and white thing. It isn't.
Now, if a judge as now ruled that an individual citizen of the body politic has a right to privacy, it doesn't mean that the FOUNDERS intended individual gun owners to be necessary to State security. It doesn't mean that they intended that gangs of gun owners could take up arms against a neighbouring State. These are matters for a well regulated militia under the control of "the people" in their collective capacity.

[X_Digger]

283. Cognitive dissonance.. does it hurt?

Yes, there is a right to privacy assertable by individuals, rather than just 'the state' or whatever term you wish to promote.

So is the right to be free from unreasonable searches, the right to travel freely, etc.

Now, if a judge as now ruled that an individual citizen of the body politic has a right to privacy, it doesn't mean that the FOUNDERS intended individual gun owners to be necessary to State security.

And if I'd said that, you'd be right. But since I didn't..

However, it does demonstrate that the use of 'the people' can protect rights assertable by individuals.

[SteveM]

323. You are in error...

The government, as has been stated, is prevented from infringing on the RKBA, just as it is prevented from abridging the rights in the First. No more needs to be said. No one needs further "evidence" of what the First is about, why should anyone demand further
"evidence" as to the content of the Second? The "militia clause" you reference is the federal government's stated interest in the more important operative clause: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms...."

The federal government has stated its interest in accordance with its powers in the Articles. The People's right needs no further explanation, at least no more than those rights in the First.

The "militia clause" is a rather recent take on the Second, and an erroneous take.

[iverglas]

42. it's Tom Jefferson!

A "classical liberal" -- in other words, a total right-wing nut job. Ta!

Hubert, we've dealt with.

Gabrielle Giffords ... I'm confused.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/worldview/110109/gabrielle-giffords-analysis-rosenblum
"When Gabrielle Giffords first ran for Congress in 2006, I asked her priorities. She named two: sensible gun control and public health care for the mentally fragile."

I guess she succumbed to the gun militants too, though. I do have to ... well, admire would be the wrong word ... the gall of anybody offering her up for the cause, though. Anybody sought her opinions recently?

I should have been more specific, anyhow. Including that "liberal" word just lets anybody in the door.

[Glenn Vardy]

229. Jefferson Quote in Context

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

1. He's talking about what most STATE constitutions assert, not the U.S. Constitution.
2. All power IS inherent in "the people" of those States, but as a collective BODY, not as individuals acting alone.
3. It's that collective body that has a duty to "be at all times armed." He's talking about keeping up a well regulated militia, not the compulsory carrying of guns ALL the time.

[RSillsbee]

36. Better be careful

or I'll post some Ted Nugent on Texas Monthly

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. O/T side note:

I think it was you that mentioned Taney of the infamous Dred Scott decision several days ago.
Trivia: he married Francis Scott Key's sister Anne. (in 1806)

[iverglas]

43. twasn't me

But political genealogy is right up my alley, so the trivia would be appreciated if it had been. ;)

Joe Biden's Robinette ancestors come from the same place in Cheshire as one branch of my roots. No known connection, but you never know.

The author of the 1929 decision holding that women were "persons" entitled to be appointed to the Senate of Canada -- and more importantly, and of continuing importance today, that the Canadian constitution is a living tree to be interpreted in the contemporary context and not frozen in time -- was the grandson of my greatx4 grandmother's brother: my cousin. I deeply regret not knowing this when I was in law school!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

47. political genealogy

I'm quite unfamiliar with most of Canadian history but I always appreciate such data.

Elizabeth (Betsy) Griscom Ross's grandfather helped build what is now Independence Hall.
Her first 2 husbands died in the war and she married a third time.

[gejohnston]

146. Which makes me proud to be from Wyoming

The author of the 1929 decision holding that women were "persons" entitled to be appointed to the Senate of Canada

Wow. Wyoming Territory had a woman Justice of the Peace in 1870, and the first woman governor in the US in 1925.
The middle link does pose an interesting question, why were the inter-mountain west states ahead of the eastern states? Honestly, it would be an interesting research project.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nellie_Tayloe_Ross

http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plan/womens-suffrage-why-west-first

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Hobart_Morris

[iverglas]

230. same was true in Canada

Your link asks the questions but doesn't give the answers. ;)

http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history/32/womenwonthevote.shtml

Manitoba was the first province in Canada to grant women the right to vote: this year, 1996, marks the eightieth anniversary of this signal advance in the ongoing struggle for women’s rights. This article tells the story of the achievement, with a particular focus on some of the women who led the suffrage movement in Manitoba. A number of these women play a prominent part as well in the most recent book by Mildred and Harry Gutkin, Profiles in Dissent: The Shaping of Radical Thought in the Canadian West.

Nice Women Don’t Want to Vote

On 27 January 1914, a large delegation of both men and women appeared before the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, once again to present the case for granting women the right to vote in provincial elections. Included in the group were representatives of the Political Equality League, the Grain Growers’ Association, the Young Women’s Christian Association, the Trades and Labor Council, the Icelandic Women’s Suffrage Association, the Canadian Women’s Press Club, and the Women’s Christian Temperance Union.

It was a gradual and uneven process here and south of the border too:

http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/encyclopedia/Canada-WomensVote-WomenSuffrage.htm

The woman suffrage movement in Canada had its beginning in 1878 under the leadership of Dr. Emily Howard Stowe, who was one of the founders and the first president of the Dominion Women's Enfranchisement Association, incorporated in 1889. The Canadian Women's Suffrage Association was the outcome of a meeting of the Toronto Women's Literary and Social Progress Club in the city council chamber in 1883, to discuss the question of woman suffrage. Closely following the organization of this association, Sir John A. Macdonald introduced a bill into parliament, which included the granting of Dominion franchise to unmarried women possessing the required qualifications. The bill was reintroduced in 1884, and was defeated. Petitions for the enfranchisement of women, from the Canadian Women's Suffrage Association, together with the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, were presented to parliament in 1894 and 1896. A change in the Electoral Act, which made the Dominion and provincial voters' lists coincide, rendered further effort useless in the Dominion legislature, and made of woman suffrage a provincial issue.

(I just think it's interesting how the reviled temperance activists were in the forefront of so many social progress movements ...) First came the vote for widows and spinsters, then ratepayers, here and there ...

The women who took the Persons Case all the way in 1929 were from the West as well:

In 1916, Emily Murphy and a group of women attempted to attend a trial of Alberta women accused of prostitution. She, and the rest of the group of women, were ejected from the trial on the grounds that the testimony was "not fit for mixed company." Emily Murphy was outraged and appealed to Charles Wilson Cross, the Attorney General of Alberta, arguing "If the evidence is not fit to be heard in mixed company, then ... the government.. {must} set up a special court presided over by women, to try other women." Much to her surprise, the minister not only agreed, but appointed her as the magistrate. However, on her first day on the job, her authority to preside as a judge was challenged by a lawyer on the basis that women were not "persons" under the British North America Act. In 1917, the Supreme Court of Alberta ruled that women were persons, thus settling the issue for Alberta, but not for the rest of Canada. Sometime later, Emily Murphy decided to test the issue in the rest of Canada by allowing her name to be put forward to Robert Borden, the Canadian Prime Minister, as a candidate for Canadian Senator. He rejected her on the familiar grounds that women were not "persons". In response to a petition signed by nearly 500,000 Canadians that asked that she be appointed to the Senate, Borden stated that he was willing to do so, but could not on the basis of an 1876 British common law ruling that stated that "women were eligible for pains and penalties, but not rights and privileges."

The issue had to do with a provision of the Constitution regarding who could be appointed to the Senate: "persons" who met certain requirements (not whether women were persons). The opposing argument was essentially that as it always had been, so should it always be. This is what happens when you have that strict construction garbage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Canada_%28Attorney_General%29

The Court interpreted the definition of "qualified person" as intended by the drafters of the BNA Act, 1867, despite acknowledging that the role of women in society had changed since that date. The Court held that the common law incapacity of women to exercise public functions excluded women from the class of "qualified persons" under section 24 of the BNA Act.

In 1867, women could not sit in Parliament. Thus, if there were to be an exception to the practice from that period, it would have to be explicitly legislated. ...

As a result of that case (in the judgment written by my 5xgreat grandparents' great-grandson), we don't got none of that strict construction stuff up here.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

48. By the way...

Is pointing out that someone is a republican like pointing out that he's like Hitler?

[iverglas]

51. Nah

There are good Republicans, you know -- as "good" as some Democrats, anyhow. Like up here: I despise the Liberal Party, but I'd have voted for Warren Allmand if I'd lived in his riding in the 70s. My party courted him, but if he'd crossed the floor he wouldn't have got elected, simple as that. Better to have him in the House (and the Cabinet) than not.

But if I'm looking for quotes to support my cause, the Liberal Party just ain't gonna be where I go hunting. Let alone the Conservative Party of this decade.

And if I do look to the Liberal Party, I'll be looking for a Warren Allmand, not a Suzannah what's her name.

And if I found that the only people someone arguing a case could find to support their cause were Conservative Party MPs, I'd point and laugh.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

52. Maybe that's just...

...another difference. Down here we had a guy who said something like no one party or group had a monopoly on the truth.

The simple fact that a party is so dominated by an ideology... it brings to mind the idea of the "closed shop" practices of unions. The very essence of progress is the development of new ideas.


I think I'll read and evaluate for myself the words of any leaders, judges, thinkers, writers and politicians. Godwinism, while never instructive, is at times... interesting.

[iverglas]

53. "another difference"?

What, that I can find support for my position among people and politicians who aren't right-wing jerks?

I guess so.


The simple fact that a party is so dominated by an ideology... it brings to mind the idea of the "closed shop" practices of unions.

That's just funny: a party dominated by an ideology. One really doesn't even know what to say.

Imagine, a church dominated by a religion ...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

54. QED n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

61. Why do America's gun laws...

...even matter to you?

I'm just curious. For someone who isn't a US citizen or resident you seem unusually concerned with our ways of doing things.

[iverglas]

72. for someone who is so curious

and so curious about moi in particular ... well, I'd have thought you'd have done something to satisfy your curiosity.

If you can read the post you just replied to, you can read the other posts I have written in the last week. Enjoy!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

82. Nah - got better things to do...

Was just curious and figured I'd give you the opportunity to make your opinion clear, rather than be forced to draw my own conclusions about your thought process and mental state.

[iverglas]

86. Nah - you weren't, and you didn't

Was just curious and figured I'd give you the opportunity to make your opinion clear ...

If you were curious, you'd do as I suggested.

I don't need you giving me anything, ta.

... rather than be forced to draw my own conclusions about your thought process and mental state.

Unless your own mental state is problematic, you won't "draw conclusions" without basis. Any conclusions you draw without basis will be of no concern to anyone. Certainly not to me. And I'm sure you wouldn't try mooting them about here.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[Atypical Liberal]

68. Imagine no religion...

...it's easy if you try.

[iverglas]

74. re that closed shop thing

Perhaps you need a Rand Formula for political parties. ;)

http://www.iamaw.ca/publications/labourterms/glossary_e.html#randformula

Rand Formula: A form of union security whereby an employer deducts a portion of the salaries of all employees within a bargaining unit, union members or not, to go to the union as union dues (“checkoff”). It was named for a decision handed down 29 Jan 1946 by Mr. Justice Ivan RAND of the Supreme Court of Canada while he was arbitrating the WINDSOR STRIKE (12 Sept-20 Dec 1945). The original formula was based on the assumption that the union is essential for all workers and must be responsible for them. Two interrelated provisions following from this assumption guaranteed the union the financial means to carry out its programs, and established the financial penalties for employees and unions engaging in work stoppages or illegal strikes. For employees, these sanctions could consist of daily fines and loss of seniority; for the union, the suspension of union dues. Collective agreements have spread a modified Rand Formula throughout Canada, and some provinces have given it legal force. (In the U.S this is known as an Agency Shop.)

Ah, and right underneath we have:

Right-to Work (Right to Work for Less): An anti-union law that requires unions to bargain for and represent all employees, while forbidding unions from negotiating contract language to require all represented workers to belong and pay dues to the union. So-called “right to work” laws are in force in some 20 U.S. states. Labour laws in Canada seem to be pointed in this direction.

Of course, it all becomes irrelevant as employment becomes precarious and contract work prevails.


I guess a Rand Formula for parties would mean you don't have to agree with the party platform, but if you benefit from the party's representation then you vote for it. Howzat?

[Atypical Liberal]

67. Here's one:

"Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms." - Barak Obama

[iverglas]

73. oh, now

Did you think pandering counted? ;)

[Atypical Liberal]

81. You asked for pro-firearm Democratic quotes, I gave you one.

From the top Democrat in our country.

[iverglas]

87. actually, I asked for no such thing

You asked for pro-firearm Democratic quotes

What is this "pro-firearm" garbage, anyhow? People are in favour of inanimate objects? Are they delusional? Inanimate objects are "good"? :shrug:

I replied to a particularly bilgey quotation from a particularly pointless right-wing individual by asking whether someone had any quotes from a liberal / progressive / d/Democratic source.

Apple pie statements about supporting the US constitution really just aren't quite on the same level.

[Atypical Liberal]

90. Here's what you said:

In response to someone giving a pro-firearm quote, you said:

Got any progressive / liberal / d/Democratic sources you'd like to quote?

So I quoted a pro-firearm quote from President Obama.

What is this "pro-firearm" garbage, anyhow? People are in favour of inanimate objects? Are they delusional? Inanimate objects are "good"?

You may substitute "gun militant" if it makes you more comfortable. Semantics bore me.

[rl6214]

109. Moving the goalposts

What sort of gun control has he enacted?

What, I didn't get that.

Nuthin.

[DWC]

106. You can't get much more current than that! Touche' n/t

[iverglas]

289. tell it to X_Digger

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=443127&mesg_id=448023

and the surrounding conversation.



Talk about wanting to eat your cake and have it too ...

[DWC]

34. No truer words were ever written or spoken. n/t

[ileus]

44. Subjects or citizens.....+100

[DWC]

69. To summarize

I thank all, on both sides of the issue, for your input. Besides a small amount of drive-by BS, most of the posts contain legitimate responses to the two questions asked.

I derive from this non-scientific sample that:

1. Gun control advocates are much more prepared than pro gun advocates to subordinate individual civil rights to what they perceive as the benefit of the collective.

2. Pro gun advocates are much more prepared than gun control advocates to trust their fellow citizens to exercise their civil rights within the confines of Constitutionally compliant Law.

3. Pro gun advocates generally approach the question from the perspective of individual rights balanced by individual responsibility.

4. Gun control advocates generally approach the question from the perspective of the overall collective.

Again, my Thanks and

Semper Fi,

[iverglas]

75. you derive strangely

What I derive from your derivation is that you started out with a foregone conclusion that you would maintain regardless of anything said and just waited a while before posting it.


1. Gun control advocates are much more prepared than pro gun advocates to subordinate individual civil rights to what they perceive as the benefit of the collective.

I'll bet you think you can stick that on me. And yet you're wrong. (I find it virtually impossible to hold such discussions with people who use this arcane "civil rights" talk, but you're still wrong.)


2. Pro gun advocates are much more prepared than gun control advocates to trust their fellow citizens to exercise their civil rights within the confines of Constitutionally compliant Law.

Pure bullshit -- I mean, it doesn't even mean anything -- but you sure got them to say it, didn't you!


3. Pro gun advocates generally approach the question from the perspective of individual rights balanced by individual responsibility.

And we sink deeper into bullshit.

Can you point me to this "responsibility" clause in your Constitution? or even in any "constitutionally compliant law"? No? So you're "balancing" ... your "rights" against ... nothing.


4. Gun control advocates generally approach the question from the perspective of the overall collective.

Oh, all right, I'll admit it; my name is One of Many and you will be assimilated.


Here's how I approach it (subject to subsequent refinements, but the headnote there is a decent summary):

R. v. Oakes, <1986> 1 S.C.R. 103

Section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1984 (Canada), provides:

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The summary of Oakes goes like this:

Two central criteria must be satisfied to establish that a limit is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

First, the objective to be served by the measures limiting a Charter right must be sufficiently important to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom. The standard must be high to ensure that trivial objectives or those discordant with the principles of a free and democratic society do not gain protection. At a minimum, an objective must relate to societal concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society before it can be characterized as sufficiently important.

Second, the party invoking s. 1 must show the means to be reasonable and demonstrably justified. This involves a form of proportionality test involving three important components.

1. The measures must be fair and not arbitrary, carefully designed to achieve the objective in question and rationally connected to that objective.

2. The means should impair the right in question as little as possible.

3. There must be a proportion­ality between the effects of the limiting measure and the objective ‑‑ the more severe the deleterious effects of a measure, the more important the objective must be.



I approach the question from the perspective of both individual rights/freedoms and the public interest, minimal impairment of those rights/freedoms, the efficacy of any proposed measures, and all the other considerations that go into determining whether a particular interference in the exercise of a particular right or freedom is justified.

I should probably apologize for actually recognizing that there is such a thing as the public interest and that some things are actually contrary to it, for demonstrable reasons. But I don't think I will.

[Atypical Liberal]

83. Pretty good summary.

As I said before, the real push for gun-control comes from people with a distrust for the individual to handle weapons. The essence of being Progressive is to seek strength in numbers so that collectively the people can achieve what they cannot on their own. To quote Hillary Clinton, "It takes a village". Many, if not most, Progressives see security as a responsibility of the collective.

Unfortunately, many Progressives get so caught up in the ideology of the collective effort that they distrust, or even resent, people working as individuals to achieve their goals. I think for many, individual action subconsciously threatens to undermine their confidence in collective action.

For these kinds of people, the risk of some people doing bad things with firearms is not worth the benefit of anyone even having the chance to defend themselves with a firearm.

[ileus]

111. excellent summation.

[Glenn Vardy]

110. Bearing Arms.

I support all civil rights of which my right to keep and bear arms is included

The U.S. Constitution does NOT secure a right for YOU to carry a gun. If you walk down the street in possession of a gun, you have NOT borne arms, you've just carried a gun.

The Oxford English Dictionary defined the phrase "bear arms" as: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight.." This definition dates back to around 1600.

Now look at what Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence: "He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country.."

Did Jefferson mean that the King had made them "carry" "guns" against their Country? or did he mean that they were made to "serve" in the "military" and "fight" against their Country?

In two separate letters, Jefferson referred directly to the Second Amendment. He described the Amendment that was ratified as: "the substitution of militia for a standing army," and "freedom from standing armies." This is no way to refer to a civil right to carry a gun. The Second Amendment is a militia amendment.

Who does the right belong to?

Bouviers Law Dictionary:
CITIZEN: "persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for representatives in congress.."

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

BODY POLITIC: " ..As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take COLLECTIVELY the name, of PEOPLE, or nation; and INDIVIDUALLY they are CITIZENS..."

Sketches of American Policy By NOAH WEBSTER.

"This association of all the individuals of a community is called the body politic or State... The members, spoken of COLLECTIVELLY, are called PEOPLE, spoken of SEVERALLY, they may be called CITIZENS..."

Let's look at an example of how "the people" was used as a referrence to a collective body in EVERY State Constitution at that time.

Massachusetts Declaration of Rights:
"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 for ONE collective body, not for each individual citizen.

Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights:
"That the people of this State have the SOLE, EXCLUSIVE and inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same."

A personal right to govern the police? No. Again, it's a right for ONE collective body, not for each individual citizen

[X_Digger]

112. How does one 'bear arms' in defense of themselves by your definition?

You conveniently ignored eight or nine state constitutions, five of which were within a decade or two of the second amendment..

The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state"

Your definition makes no sense in the above context. That's the thing about words. They can have multiple meanings. Case in point..

Re 'the people'- See US v. Verdugo-Urquirdez for the salient definition.

How does 'people' in the fourth and ninth amendment differ from 'people' in the second? Does society 'collectively' have an unenumerated right to privacy under the ninth amendment, or do individuals have that right?

Yes, 'people' is the plural of 'person'. But if I say, "People can walk down the street any time they choose." -- would you seriously assert that you have to do so in a group?!?

What balderdash.

[Glenn Vardy]

113. Different Provisions.

You conveniently ignored eight or nine state constitutions, five of which were within a decade or two of the second amendment..

What bearing can a provision using different terms than the Second Amendment have on the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment? Those provisions could read: "Every individual has the right to own a firearm," but they'd be using diferent terms than the Second Amendment and they'd have a different purpose. The ones that refer to the defence of "themselves" as well as the State are dealing with the civil or common defence.

Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Believe it or not, that's the ONLY one of the provisions that you posted that was/is intended to secure a right for individuals to own guns for private purposes. Looks nothing like the Second Amendment, does it?

[X_Digger]

116. Your idiomatic use of 'bear' to only mean military service is blown away by these state provisions.

How does one call up the militia to defend one's person? (Especially a militia as the founders understood it..)

And why separate 'themselves' from 'state' if, as you claim, they are synonymous?

Ridiculous.

[Glenn Vardy]

120. Modern Provision

"A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

How does one call up the militia to defend one's person?

Again, what light can this modern provision shead on the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment?

[X_Digger]

121. Are you intentionally ignoring the other states I mentioned?

The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state"

If, as you assert, 'bear arms' is strictly in a military capacity, how does a resident of Vermont, let's say, call up the militia to defend 'themselves'?

Your top seems to have lost it's wobble. Spin it up again.

[Glenn Vardy]

127. The Military Context

Vermont: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

If, as you assert, 'bear arms' is strictly in a military capacity, how does a resident of Vermont, let's say, call up the militia to defend 'themselves'?

The word "resident" is a term that YOU'VE used as though the Vermont provision deals with self defence for all individual residents. The defence of "themselves" is the same thing as the "common defence." Because the defence of the "State" is mentioned, this IS a militia provision. There are no terms in that provision referring to individuals OR ownership.

[X_Digger]

128. If the two are synonymous, why repeat it?

It makes no sense.

'in defense of the state and the state' -- you do realize how ludicrous that sounds, right?

eta: And I love how you ignored Alabama.. LOL!

spin spin spin!

[DWC]

131. I honestly think you may be debating an old DUer with a new name.

Different name. Possibly different stated gender. Exactly the same style and narcissistic, elitist BS.

Semper Fi,

[X_Digger]

132. Entirely possible. But hey, it lets lurkers see just how silly some can be.

I have to say, I enjoy exposing the ludicrous lengths some will go to try to minimize the constitution.

[DWC]

136. Point well taken.

And besides, occasionally it is fun to feign a debate with a self aggrandizing stump.

Semper Fi,

[Glenn Vardy]

139. You Miss The Point

Vermont: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

'in defense of the state and the state' -- you do realize how ludicrous that sounds, right?

No. The point ISN'T whether or not "the people" and "State" are always the same thing. The point IS whether or not "the people" is a collective body. The word "themselves" in that provision doesn't alter the meaning of "the people" I've posted a provision declaring that "the people" have the "SOLE" and "EXCLUSIVE" right to govern "THEMSELVES" as a State. The word "themselves" is a reference to the whole BODY of "the people," not to each individual.

[X_Digger]

140. But you depend on 'the people' to mean 'the state'.. so it's circular definitions, once removed

'themselves' -> 'the people' -> 'the state'

You're still left with 'the state has the right to bear arms for defence of the state and the state'.

LOL!!

Is 'the people' the same as 'the state' in the ninth amendment?



:popcorn:

This should be good..

[Glenn Vardy]

141. "The People" in the 9th & 10th Amendments

Is 'the people' the same as 'the state' in the ninth amendment?

Again, it's irrelevant. Is "the people" in the Ninth Amendment referring to a collective body or to individuals? THAT'S relevant.

Massachusetts Declaration of Rights:
"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."

"The people" in that provision is CLEARLY one collective body with one "SOLE" right. It's AS a collective body that they retain/reserve powers/rights in the 9th and 10th Amendments. It's AS A BODY that they delegated them to Congress, and it's AS A BODY that they're retained.

[X_Digger]

143. Yes, words can have multiple meanings, depending on context. We've established that.

I notice you didn't actually answer the question, either.

Does a person have an unenumerated right to privacy via the ninth amendment, as codified in Roe?

Simple question..

[Glenn Vardy]

145. Diversion With Irrelevant Questions

I notice you didn't actually answer the question

This was your question:
"Is 'the people' the same as 'the state' in the ninth amendment?"

This was my answer:
"Again, it's irrelevant. Is "the people" in the Ninth Amendment referring to a collective body or to individuals? THAT'S relevant.

Massachusetts Declaration of Rights:
"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."

""The people" in that provision is CLEARLY one collective body with one "SOLE" right. It's AS a collective body that they retain/reserve powers/rights in the 9th and 10th Amendments. It's AS A BODY that they delegated them to Congress, and it's AS A BODY that they're retained."
-------------

See how I shown that "the people" in the Ninth Amendment is reference to one SOLE body, not individuals? I don't NEED to prove that "the people" and the "State" are the same thing.

[X_Digger]

148. No, you actually haven't shown that..

You've shown examples of one usage of 'the people' to mean a collective body, replaceable with 'the state'.

But that usage isn't uniform in application. Otherwise, there would be no individual right to privacy.

[Glenn Vardy]

259. 99.9% certainty

Massachusetts Declaration of Rights:
"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."

""The people" in that provision is CLEARLY one collective body with one "SOLE" right. It's AS a collective body that they retain/reserve powers/rights in the 9th and 10th Amendments. It's AS A BODY that they delegated them to Congress, and it's AS A BODY that they're retained."
-------------

You've shown examples of one usage of 'the people' to mean a collective body, replaceable with 'the state'. But that usage isn't uniform in application.

When dealing with a "well regulated militia" and the "security of a free State," isn't it a 99.9% cetainty that "the people" is applied in the Second Amendment as I've shown above?

[X_Digger]

265. 99.99% wrong.. or 99.99999999%

(hint: putting an unsubstantiated percentage on something doesn't make it valid.)

(hint2: Putting something IN ALL CAPS doesn't give your argument weight, either.)

Yes, I'm gently poking fun at you; no I'm not claiming 99.99% or any other such number, lest you take that seriously.

When dealing with a "well regulated militia" and the "security of a free State," isn't it a 99.9% cetainty that "the people" is applied in the Second Amendment as I've shown above?

I'll take that as an unstated concession that 'the people' does not always refer to a 'the state'. Now.. we have examples of individual/non-state rights using 'the people' language (assembly in the first, searches in the fourth, privacy in the ninth).

Similar wording to the second can be found in other writing of the time, though it's fallen out of favor these days, other than the 'Whereas... statements in front of many laws. For a contemporaneous comparison, see Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject..".

That construction- '{preamble}, {statement}' exists today, but we usually swap the clauses- "I'm going to the supermarket, I'm completely out of soda." or we add in a 'because' or 'since'- "Since I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the supermarket." or "I'm going to the supermarket because I'm completely out of soda."

Preambles don't limit operative clauses. (Stores don't just sell soda.) See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871)

So it could have said, 'whereas the moon is made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' and it would mean exactly the same thing.

[Glenn Vardy]

266. Let this stuff sink in.

Now.. we have examples of individual/non-state rights using 'the people' language (assembly in the first, searches in the fourth, privacy in the ninth).

They're NOT individual rights. The Founders/Framers would have been aware of more suitable terms to protect personal rights than the terms used to describe the menbers of the body-politic in their collective capacity. I've posted you the definitions from two different sources already, but you won't let it sink in. I've also explained how rights, both personal and collective, differ in their application. That hasn't sunk in either, so here it is again.
---------------------------------------
Repost:
All individual rights differ IN THEIR APPLICATION. The right to a trial by jury differs from freedom of religion. Not everyone can request a speedy trial by jury, it's just available to you if you're charged with a crime. Collective rights ALSO differ in their application, and this is why there's confusion.

With the Fourth Amendment, *IF* you belong to the BODY that holds the right, you're protected against unreasonable searches. But that doesn't mean that you can also claim the militia amendment to apply to you, personally.
"The people" in the Second Amendment is used in the same way as it's used in "The people v. Joe Criminal." No individual or groups of individuals other than the WHOLE body of "the people" can put "Joe Criminal" on trial. Likewise, with the Second Amendment, no Individuals or groups of individuals other than the body of "the people" can claim the right to be theirs, personally. There's a system in place. If you're an able-bodied male between the ages 16-45, you're eligible to be called to serve on behalf of "the people" in the same way as individuals are called to serve on a jury in the trial of "Joe Criminal."
-------------------------------------

The right for "the people" to assemble to petition the government is applied in a different way than both of those amendments, too. But if you don't belong to that body, you don't have the right, even though you're an individual. Notice that, in the First Amendment, it doesn't say that Congress shall pass no law abridging the right to assemble. They DELIBERATELY inserted "the right of the people" at THAT point to protect ONLY that body.

[X_Digger]

269. A bald assertion, stated differently (or repeatedly) is still just an assertion.

They're NOT individual rights.

Did you really just claim that? Seriously?!?

Are you using some wild-assed definition of 'individual'?

With the Fourth Amendment, *IF* you belong to the BODY that holds the right, you're protected against unreasonable searches.

Supreme court precedent is mixed on this issue.. INS v Lopez-Mendoza appears to endorse the application of the fourth amendment to aliens in the US without documentation, but they side-stepped the issue in US v Verdugo-Urquidez. Now when we get to any right that falls under the 14th's equal protection clause, they definitely apply (Yick Wo v Hopkins, Wong Wing v US, Plyer v Doe).

http://fourthamendment.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&c=1&more=1&pb=1&tb=1&title=dicta_illegal_aliens_have_fourth_amendme

In holding that the Fourth Amendment provided no extraterritorial protection to a Mexican citizen whose home in Mexico was searched by federal agents without a warrant, the Supreme Court stated that its prior cases "establish only that aliens receive constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country." United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271, 110 S. Ct. 1056, 108 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1990). The Fifth Circuit recently declined to decide whether that statement in the Verdugo-Urquidez opinion was controlling law, given the statement in Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion: "If the search had occurred in a residence within the United States, I have little doubt that the full protections of the Fourth Amendment would apply," Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. at 278 (Kennedy, J., concurring). Martinez-Aguero v. Gonzalez, 459 F.3d 618, 624 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 837, 166 L. Ed. 2d 667 (2006).

So no, there may be no 'body' that one has to belong to for fourth amendment protections to apply- other than being human, and in our jurisdiction.

But really, this is all immaterial- it's an individual right, not a 'the state' right. It is a right that should any organ of 'the state' violate, an individual has standing to sue.

no Individuals or groups of individuals other than the body of "the people" can claim the right to be theirs, personally.

Bald assertion.

[Glenn Vardy]

270. Your argument has huge holes

1. Do you agree that the Framers/Founders were aware of the more suitable terms to refer to individuals than "the people?"
2. Do you agree that these SAME men used those other terms in their own State BoR's?
3. Do you agree that they ALWAYS used "the people" to refer to the collective body, ie, "the people" having the "sole" right to regulate the police?
4. Do you agree that they used the terms EXACTLTY as defined in the two different sources I provided in their own State Constitutions?
5. Do you think those sources were wrong?
6. Why did these SAME men use the terms in a back-to-front way in the US Constitution than they had ALWAYS used them in their own State Constitutions?

In reality, they used terms in the US BoR in the same way as in their own State BoR's and as defined in the two sources I provided. If they were protecting a personal right for each "citizen" with the Second Amendment, SOMEONE would have pointed out that a more suitable term should be used. I mean, they even changed "the best security" because it left open the idea that there was another. As I said, if they were being THAT careful to remove anything that could be misconstrued, and if they were protecting a right for every citizen, they would have changed "the people" for obvious reasons. No one said a thing.

[X_Digger]

271. You've jumped back a few steps, haven't you..

regarding your questions:
1. Irrelevant. I doubt they expected someone to try to semantically hand-wave rights away.
2. ditto
3. Absolutely not. The first's right to assemble, the fourth's right to be free from unreasonable search, the ninth's right to privacy-- all protect individuals.
4. Absolutely not. Various state constitutions also use 'the people' and protect individual rights.
5. I think the sources are fine. It's you trying to apply them that goes off the rails.
6. They didn't use the same terms in a 'back-to-front way'. Various state constitutions, and the bill of rights protect individual rights using 'the people'.

The constitution was meant to be read and understood by everyday people, not just those with access to a law dictionary.

Would an average person, say Roger Sherman, have thought that the right protected was that for every person? (as they understood person at the time)

By your same logic, there is no right to travel- because they didn't specify it. Of course that's not how rights work, but it is your logic.

[Glenn Vardy]

274. No "back to front" way?

They didn't use the same terms in a 'back-to-front way'. Various state constitutions, and the bill of rights protect individual rights using 'the people'.

Show me where "the people" in this Declaration of Rights is reference to each "Individual," "man," "subject" or "citizen".
--------------------------------
A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Art. I.--All MEN are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

II.--It is the right as well as the duty of ALL MEN in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great creator and preserver of the universe. And no SUBJECT shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in HIS PERSON, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of HIS OWN conscience; or for HIS religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.

III.--As the happiness of A PEOPLE, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the PUBLIC worship of GOD, and of PUBLIC instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote THEIR happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, THE PEOPLE of this Commonwealth have A RIGHT to invest THEIR LEGISLATURE with POWER to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other BODIES-POLITIC, or religious SOCIETIES, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of GOD, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.



And THE PEOPLE of this Commonwealth have also A RIGHT to, and do, invest THEIR LEGISLATURE with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the PUBLIC teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.



Provided notwithstanding, that the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other BODIES-POLITIC, or religious societies, shall, at all times, have the EXCLUSIVE right of electing their public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance.

And all monies paid by THE SUBJECT to the support of PUBLIC worship, and of the public teachers aforesaid, shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends: otherwise it may be paid towards the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said monies are raised.

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.

V.--All power residing originally in THE PEOPLE, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.



VI.--NO MAN, nor corporation, or ASSOCIATION OF MEN, have any other title to obtain advantages, or particular and exclusive privileges, distinct from those of the COMMUNITY, than what arises from the consideration of services rendered to the public; and this title being in nature neither hereditary, nor transmissible to children, or descendants, or relations by blood, the idea of a man born a magistrate, lawgiver, or judge, is absurd and unnatural.

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 a 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.



IX.--All elections ought to be free; and ALL THE INHABITANTS of this Commonwealth, having such qualifications as they shall establish by THEIR frame of government, have an EQUAL RIGHT to elect officers, and to be elected, for public employments.

X.--EACH INDIVIDUAL of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property, according to standing laws. HE is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; to give HIS PERSONAL service, or an equivalent, when necessary: But NO PART of the property of ANY INDIVIDUAL, can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to PUBLIC uses without his own consent, or that of the representative BODY of THE PEOPLE: In fine, THE PEOPLE of this Commonwealth are not controlable by any other laws, than those to which THEIR constitutional representative BODY have given their consent. And whenever the public exigencies require, that the property of ANY INDIVIDUAL should be appropriated to PUBLIC uses, HE shall receive a reasonable compensation therefor.

XI.--EVERY SUBJECT of the Commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his PERSON, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay; conformably to the laws.

XII.--NO SUBJECT shall be held to answer for any crime or offence, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to HIM; or be compelled to accuse, or furnish evidence against himself. And EVERY SUBJECT shall have A RIGHT to produce all proofs, that may be favorable to him; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself, or his council, at his election. And NO SUBJECT shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled, or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate; but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.

And the legislature shall not make any law, that shall subject ANY PERSON to a capital or infamous punishment, excepting for the government of the army and navy, without trial by jury.

XIII.--In criminal prosecutions, the verification of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is one of the greatest securities of the life, liberty, and property of the CITIZEN.

XIV.--EVERY SUBJECT has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of HIS PERSON, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected PERSONS, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the PERSONS or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities, prescribed by the laws.

XV.--In all controversies concerning property, and in all suits between two or more PERSONS, except in cases in which it has heretofore been otherways used and practised, the parties have a right to a trial by jury; and this method of procedure shall be held sacred, unless, in causes arising on the high-seas, and such as relate to mariners wages, the legislature shall hereafter find it necessary to alter it.

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.



XVIII.--A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to those of piety, justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve the advantages of liberty, and to maintain a free government: THE PEOPLE ought, consequently, to have a particular attention to all those principles, in the choice of their officers and representatives: And they have a right to require of their law-givers and magistrates, an exact and constant observance of them, in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of the Commonwealth.

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.



XXI.--The freedom of deliberation, speech and debate, in either HOUSE OF THE LEGISLATURE, is so essential to the rights of THE PEOPLE, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.

XXII.--The legislature ought frequently to assemble for the redress of grievances, for correcting, strengthening, and confirming the laws, and for making new laws, as the COMMON good may require.

XXIII.--No subsidy, charge, tax, impost, or duties, ought to be established, fixed, laid, or levied, under any pretext whatsoever, without the consent of THE PEOPLE, or their representatives in the legislature.



XXV.--NO SUBJECT ought, in any case, or in any time, to be declared guilty of treason or felony by the legislature.

XXVIII.--NO PERSON can in any case be subjected to law-martial, or to any penalties or pains, by virtue of that law, except those employed in the army or navy, and except the militia in actual service, but by authority of the legislature.

XXIX.--It is essential to the preservation of the rights of EVERY INDIVIDUAL, his life, liberty, property and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice. It is the right of EVERY CITIZEN to be tried by judges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit. 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; and that they should have honorable salaries ascertained and established by standing laws.

[X_Digger]

275. You're quoting one state, and claiming that's universal? *snort*

All I have to quote is the fourth amendment, or the ninth, or the first.. Or various state constitutions, such as Kentucky's tenth section.

[Glenn Vardy]

279. What you need to do

You're quoting one state, and claiming that's universal? *snort* All I have to quote is.......

Well, you're the one who claimed that the Framers didn't use "the people" differently in their own State Constitutions than they did in the U.S. Bill of Rights AND that they used it as a reference to all individuals. I've shown around a half dozen examples of "the people" being a reference to the collective body of "the people" from just ONE State Constitution. If you can find any examples in State constitutions of "the people" being used as a reference to all individuals, they'll be the exeption to the rule. The Framer did NOT use terms in a way that was the exeption to the rule in the U.S. BoR.

[X_Digger]

281. Kentucky's section 10.. (their version of the fourth.)

It protects a right assertable by individuals, rather than 'the state'.

[Glenn Vardy]

291. "The People" of Kentucky

Kentucky's section 10.. (their version of the fourth.)It protects a right assertable by individuals, rather than 'the state'.

If you don't want to post the material to back up your argument, that's up to you.
If the right is secured to "the people," it DOESN'T apply to ALL "individuals." They could have used terms like "all persons" if they intended to protect a fundemental right. No, they CHOSE to protect "the people" of THAT State with that provision. It identifies one collective body with the terms used, "the people" of Kentucky.

[X_Digger]

294. Oh for fuck's sake..

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/legresou/constitu/010.htm

The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable search and seizure; and no warrant shall issue to search any place, or seize any person or thing, without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.

My arm is tired from lifting the spoon to feed you.

How can the state of kentucky assert a right to keep itself from searching itself without a warrant?!?

Any individual of that state can bring a suit alleging violation of that state's provision. No state court has ever found that an individual doesn't have standing because they are an individual, not the collective 'the people'.

[Glenn Vardy]

298. What's up?

The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable search and seizure; and no warrant shall issue to search any place, or seize any person or thing, without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.

Too late. I've adressed that provision without even seeing it. Here's what I said and what YOU couldn't refute.
--------------
"If the right is secured to "the people," it DOESN'T apply to ALL "individuals." They could have used terms like "all persons" if they intended to protect a fundemental right. No, they CHOSE to protect "the people" of THAT State with that provision. It identifies one collective body with the terms used, "the people" of Kentucky."
-----------------

If there's somthing in that post that you think is wrong, what is it?
Is it a fact that one collective body is identified with the phrase "the people?"
It's the meaning of the terms used that we're trying to determine here, and you're losing.

First, accept that "the people" is ALWAYS used to identify a collective body. Then accept that all rights differ IN THEIR APPLICATION, whether personal or collective. "The people" IS one body, but it isn't one biological being living in ONE house. The application of the Fourth Amendment WILL differ from the Second Amendment because "the people" of each State DO have just ONE well-regulated militia.

[X_Digger]

306. If a right is assertable by a person, it's not 'collective'.

You'd get laughed out of court for that one.

Prosecutors would love you because the exclusionary rule would go right out the window if the fourth amendment didn't apply to individuals.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

302. Just out of curiosity...

...how long are you going to argue with Glenn Vardy that people are really individuals? Ever seen the black knight (played by Graham Chapman) argue with King Arthur?

By the third day, that wouldn't be funny anymore either. :)

[Glenn Vardy]

303. Religiously scrupulous people

people are really individuals

Draft presented to the house:
"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."

If "the people" in the first clause means "people" as individual persons, why doesn't the last clause read "but people religiously scrupulous shall not be compelled to bear arms?"

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

304. why...

...are you asking my help to prove your point?

[SteveM]

325. Wow, you are completely off the wall....

The PEOPLE are mentioned in the 4th, and within the same sentence, "persons" are protected from unreasonable search and seizure. You really are playing around with this. What is your point?

[X_Digger]

307. Yeah, It's getting old.. I'm tired of listening to his babble.

Sorry to inflict his inanity on the rest of you.

[Glenn Vardy]

309. You're tired of facing the truth.

Original Draft:
"..compelled to render military service..."

Next draft:
"..compelled to bear arms."

The Oxford English Dictionary (1600's)
BEAR ARMS: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight.."

What's the difference?

[Glenn Vardy]

114. Distorting Urquidez

Re 'the people'- See US v. Verdugo-Urquirdez for the salient definition.

Q. Are you trying to claim that "a CLASS of persons" means the same thing as "the PERSONS of a class?"
Q. Are you trying to claim that "CONTRASTS WITH person" means "MEANS each person?

You need to read US v. Verdugo-Urquirdez again, and not Scalia's distortion of it.

[X_Digger]

115. Yes, a class of persons is a group of individuals-- not 'the state'

Again, "People have a right to vote." -- does not mean a *person* can't.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/494/259/case.html

"the people" 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.

[Glenn Vardy]

122. "The People" Elect

Again, "People have a right to vote." -- does not mean a *person* can't.

Wrong. Post any document dealing with voting from that period which refers to "the people" voting. Individual persons vote, but the people elect.

"the people" 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.

And?
I've already commented on it. A "CLASS of persons" is DIFFERENT than the "PERSONS of the class."

[X_Digger]

124. A distinction without substance..

Your flogging of one particular definition, to the exclusion of all others is laughable.

I'll repeat it, since you studiously ignored it the last time..

How does 'people' in the fourth and ninth amendment differ from 'people' in the second? Does society 'collectively' have an unenumerated right to privacy under the ninth amendment, or do individuals have that right?

Yes, 'people' is the plural of 'person'. But if I say, "People can walk down the street any time they choose." -- would you seriously assert that you have to do so in a group?!?

The constitution was meant to be read and understood by the layman. Can you honestly claim that, 'oh this particular definition, not this other one was intended' in *one* place, but not *another*?!?

[Glenn Vardy]

129. Side-Stepper

....you studiously ignored it the last time..

Hang on a sec'.... You have not yet addressed a single thing I said in my opening post. You're introducing DIFFERENT material to debate and I'm addressing that material.

[X_Digger]

130. I showed counter-examples

Your interpretation depends on a strict application of two definitions- 'bear' and 'people'- and only insofar as applies in *some* places, but not others. (If we took the same interpretation of 'people' and applied it to the ninth amendment, there would be no individual right to privacy, as clarified in Roe. If we took the same interpretation of 'bear' and attempted to apply it to the various state constitutions that were contemporaneous to the second amendment, we're left with the silly expectation of militia defense of 'himself / themselves'.)

In other words, I gave it the consideration it deserved.

[Atypical Liberal]

117. The US supreme court disagrees with you.

The U.S. Constitution does NOT secure a right for YOU to carry a gun. If you walk down the street in possession of a gun, you have NOT borne arms, you've just carried a gun.

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you.

The Oxford English Dictionary defined the phrase "bear arms" as: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight.." This definition dates back to around 1600.

But moreover, the reason why people carry firearms on their person is in case they need to fight with it.

[Glenn Vardy]

123. Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Well, if YOU disagree with anything I wrote, why haven't you addressed ANY of it. I've already given an example of how those conservative judges distorted previous Supreme Court rulings. Address that.

[X_Digger]

125. You do realize that all nine agreed with the individual right interpretation, yes?

The first sentence in the Heller dissent..

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

[Atypical Liberal]

126. Because it's already been done for me.

Well, if YOU disagree with anything I wrote, why haven't you addressed ANY of it.

Because the work has already been done for me by the Supreme Court.

I've already given an example of how those conservative judges distorted previous Supreme Court rulings. Address that.

All 9 judges were unanimous in their opinion that the second amendment conveyed an individual right to keep and bear arms.

[Glenn Vardy]

133. Ruling Based On Lies

Well, if YOU disagree with anything I wrote, why haven't you addressed ANY of it.

Because the work has already been done for me by the Supreme Court.

No, it's because you can't refute any of it. Let's debate the evidence ourselves to see if that ruling was right. Again, I've given one example of where they got it wrong, but you keep side-stepping what I said. Another example of where they got it wrong was when they said that "bear arms" is only a military expression when followed by "against." They KNEW that that was wrong because the court was presented with dozens of examples with a CLEAR military context WITHOUT the word "against." Want to comment on those? The ruling was based on lies.

[Atypical Liberal]

134. No, it's just not worth the effort, and I can't compete with SC judges.

No, it's because you can't refute any of it. Let's debate the evidence ourselves to see if that ruling was right. Again, I've given one example of where they got it wrong, but you keep side-stepping what I said. Another example of where they got it wrong was when they said that "bear arms" is only a military expression when followed by "against." They KNEW that that was wrong because the court was presented with dozens of examples with a CLEAR military context WITHOUT the word "against." Want to comment on those? The ruling was based on lies.

I can refute it, but it's not worth the effort any more. Nine Supreme Court Judges, with hundreds of years of experience in Constitutional law between them, all came to the same agreement that the second amendment conveys an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Nothing I could come up with would hold a candle to their knowledge and effort.

Your argument is that people can only bear arms if they are acting as soldiers. By extension, this would mean that people can only bear arms if they are actively acting as part of a militia.

I have argued against this countless times, and the Supreme Court has ruled on my side of the argument. I'm sorry, but I'm really not up for engaging in a debate on the subject anymore, and I don't need to. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in my favor.

If you wish to engage in one of those "I'm not out of step, the rest of the army is" arguments, knock yourself out. I'm not playing ball. I don't have to. My side has already won this argument.

[Glenn Vardy]

135. We Have A Loser

I can refute it, but it's not worth the effort

See ya!

[DWC]

137. You are soooo right about that.

But you will get over it.

Congratulations Atypical Liberal for a solid win.

Semper Fi,

[We_Have_A_Problem]

138. Which previous rulings are those?

Could you present a single one which supports your view?

[X_Digger]

142. Certainly not..

Cruikshank..

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

Nor People v. Brown..

The power is, of
course, subject to the limitation that its exercise be reasonable,
and it cannot constitutionally result in the prohibition of the
possession of those arms which, by the common opinion and usage of
law-abiding people, are proper and legitimate to be kept upon
private premises for the protection of person and property.

Nor Nunn v State of Georgia..

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree;

[Glenn Vardy]

153. Distorting Cruikshank

Cruikshank..
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

Are you trying to claim that the Second Amendment secures a personal right to own guns for any "lawful purpose" based on THAT State provision? Why? The court simply said that the Second Amendment is only a restriction on Congress. They DIDN'T say that the Second Amendment protects the same thing as THAT provision.

[X_Digger]

157. I'm sorry, can you repeat that? The second amendment is a restriction on whom?

Yes, congress. (And now the states, thanks to the fourteenth.)

The right protected by the second amendment pre-dates the constitution. The second amendment does not place a limit on the use of the right, no more than computers aren't covered by the first amendment because they are not 'presses'.

Or as the SCOTUS said re Cruikshank and the first amendment..

The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government... It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection..

[Glenn Vardy]

162. More Irrelevance from X_Digger

I'm sorry, can you repeat that? The second amendment is a restriction on whom?

Why do you need me to say it again?
The relevant part of my post is where I tell you what the Cruikshank court DIDN'T say, that the Second Amendment protects the same thing as that STATE provision. If I'm wrong, post the text.

[X_Digger]

163. Had I said that it did, your point would be valid.. since I didn't..

Well, you get the picture.

[Glenn Vardy]

166. What's Your Point?

Had I said that it did, your point would be valid.. since I didn't.. Well, you get the picture.

Ok, you posted the part of the text from Cruikshank that quotes a State provision. What point were you trying to make if not that the court said the Second Amendment protects the same thing? Was your only point that the Second Amendment doesn't create a right? I can agree with that. But your error is to conclude that it MUST be protecting an individual right. In fact, half of the existing State provisions said no more than "A well regulated militia is the proper defence of a free State." These provisions were in there own Declaration of Rights. Why can't Congress be restricted from infringing on THOSE rights. That is in fact what the Second Amendment restricts Congress from infringing upon.

[X_Digger]

168. The first portion was the relevant bit..

The fact that the right pre-dates the constitution- therefore the second amendment (a restriction on government) cannot and does not, limit the right.

Regarding your second question re state provisions and the second amendment- early federalism didn't work that way. As you well know, until the slaughterhouse cases (a travesty of the intent of the 14th, btw), the bill of rights only applied to the federal government. Read the rest of Cruikshank.

[Glenn Vardy]

144. See "Distorting Urquidez" Thread.

Which previous rulings are those?

Isn't it clear that we're talking about the Urquidez ruling? Got any comment on what I said?

Could you present a single one which supports your view?

I could present 200 years worth. You have a couple of recent ones that overturned/ignored/distorted 200 years of case law.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

170. No it isnt clear

that you were explicitly discussing the Urquidez ruling. You said, and I quote, "...previous Supreme Court rulings". That implies more than one.

Urquidez supports the individual rights view whether you agree with that or not.

If you believe you can present 200 years worth, then by all means, please do. We await your presentation.

[Glenn Vardy]

173. Isn't clear to YOU.....

....that we're discussing Urquidez, even though you're posting in the "Distorting Urquidez" thread? It's your problem. You can't debate rationally, so you're turning it into a squabble.

You said, and I quote, "...previous Supreme Court rulings". That implies more than one.

Yes, more than one Supreme Court ruling HAS been distorted and I've addressed one of the others in the "Distorting Cruikshank" thread.

[Glenn Vardy]

177. Distorded SCotUS Rulings

Which previous rulings are those?

We're already discussing two of them, Urquidez and Cruikshank. Feel free to comment on what I said. They also distorted Miller and ignores Lewis.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

181. Except...

neither of those supports the collective rights theory. In fact, they both support the individual rights theory.

Miller was not so much a decision as a reversal wherein the court basically said "We dont have any proof that this particular shotgun is of a type used by the military so why dont you show us some" and sent it back to the lower court. In truth, even Miller supports the individual rights theory AND supports the idea that military weapons specifically are protected.

Lewis expanded upon Miller and explicitly stated that the arms must have some reasonable relationship to militia service - again protecting military style weapons for individual use.

[Glenn Vardy]

211. Miller

neither of those supports the collective rights theory. In fact, they both support the individual rights theory. Miller was not so much a decision as a reversal wherein the court basically said "We dont have any proof that this particular shotgun is of a type used by the military so why dont you show us some"

No. What they said was that "Millers possession AND USE of his gun has NOTHING to do with the "OBVIOUS PURPOSE" of BOTH clauses of the Second Amendment." Scalia & Co have read into Miller what they didn't say. Miller said "we cannot say" but Scalia & Co inserted their OWN version of what they WOULD have said had the gun been military type. If Millers gun HAD been a military type weapon, his possession AND USE of it would STILL have had NOTHING to do with the continuation of the militia forces in Article 1, Section 8.

In Miller, the court read out Article 1, Section 8. then said that the "obvious purpose" of BOTH CLAUSES of the Second Amendment was to assure the continuation of the organized militia forces mentioned in Article 1, Section 8. Scalia & Co said that the Second Amendment has no connection with those militia forces. The two are opposites.

George Mason. - "The militia may be here (Art 1, Sec 8) 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.. 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."

US v. Miller
"The Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) as originally adopted granted to the Congress power--"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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."

"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view..."

[Glenn Vardy]

216. Lewis

In fact, they both support the individual rights theory.

LEWIS v. UNITED STATES:
"These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939)"

How does THAT support the "individual rights" theory? Did this case also revolve around a sawn-off shotgun?

[Glenn Vardy]

217. Urquidez

UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ

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...
---------------------------------

Condensed:
"The people.. contrasts with.. person"

Scalia & Co interpreted THAT as:
"The people.. means.. each person"

[X_Digger]

220. Now who's distorting?

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

So.. 'the people' is the same in the first, second, ninth, and tenth..

Is there an individual right to privacy via the ninth?

If there is, then obviously you can't apply one usage to all instances.

[Glenn Vardy]

222. You are.

So.. 'the people' is the same in the first, second, ninth, and tenth

Yes. And if you go back up the thread to my last post you'll see the proof that it doesn't mean every "person."

[X_Digger]

232. Does the ninth protect an individual right to privacy? n/t

[Glenn Vardy]

238. Retaining Collective Rights

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."

Clearly, "the people" in the provision above is a collective body. As the provision states, that collected body retains rights and powers that they, as a body, haven't delegated to Congress.

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

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."

[X_Digger]

239. That's a matrix-worthy dodge.

It's a simple question.

[Glenn Vardy]

261. YOU'RE dodging the Urquidez distortion.

UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ

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...
---------------------------------

Condensed:
"The people.. contrasts with.. person"

Scalia & Co interpreted THAT as:
"The people.. means.. each person"

Comment?

[X_Digger]

272. Lol, why don't you ever use better quote?

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

[Glenn Vardy]

280. Very short memory?

Lol, why don't you ever use better quote?

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

I see you didn't address what I said in my previous post. Instead, you've reposted a different part that I've already addressed.

Q. What's the difference between a "CLASS of persons" and the "PERSONS of the class?"
A. The first is refference to the WHOLE people and the second is reference to it's individual members.

Now, explain how anyone can confuse:
a. "the people CONTRASTS WITH person"
and
b. "the people MEANS each person."

[X_Digger]

282. The right is assertable by a person.

It's a class of what? Alpacas? Gryphons?

No.. persons. Individuals.

[Glenn Vardy]

293. The phrase "The People" identifies a certain body

The right is assertable by a person.

NOT if the "person" isn't a part of the collective body that holds the right.

It's a class of what? Alpacas? Gryphons?

No.. persons. Individuals.

You're just being silly now. What's the difference between a "CLASS of persons" and the "PERSONS of a class?" The phrase is used to identify a certain body.

[X_Digger]

296. The fourth, first, and others have been held to apply to *any* person within our jurisdiction.

In that case, the only collective body they have to belong to is 'having 23 pairs of chromosomes'-- being human.

[Glenn Vardy]

301. You've grasped nothing

The fourth, first, and others have been held to apply to *any* person within our jurisdiction

So the body identified with the phrase "the people" isn't the people of Britain. The phrase "the people" is ALWAYS used to identify a certain collective BODY. Even your OWN words prove the point.

[X_Digger]

308. Enough of this inanity

Take your claims to a court and watch them laugh you out on your ass.

[Glenn Vardy]

315. "The collective body of the people"

Constitution of North Carolina, December 18, 1776:
XXV. "The property of the soil, in a free government, being one of the essential RIGHTS of the COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE...."

[DWC]

118. Totally supports my summary

"That's a "sole" and "exclusive" right for ONE collective body, not for each individual citizen."

That which applies to any one of our unalienable and Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights must apply to all our unalienable and constitutionally guaranteed civil rights.

Again, as a general descriptor:

Gun control advocates consider civil rights to be intended for the "collective".

Pro-gun, 2nd amendment advocates consider civil rights to be intended for each and every citizen individually.

Simper Fi,

[Glenn Vardy]

119. Explain

Massachusetts Declaration of Rights:
"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 for ONE collective body, not for each individual citizen.

That which applies to any one of our unalienable and Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights must apply to all our unalienable and constitutionally guaranteed civil rights.

What does THAT mean in relation to what I wrote? Are you saying that the right secured in the above provision is "sole" and "exclusive" to millions of individual "people?"

[DWC]

169. Just read your own posts and...

the posts of your opposition.

I summarized this discussion in post #69:

"I thank all, on both sides of the issue, for your input. Besides a small amount of drive-by BS, most of the posts contain legitimate responses to the two questions asked.

I derive from this non-scientific sample that:

1. Gun control advocates are much more prepared than pro gun advocates to subordinate individual civil rights to what they perceive as the benefit of the collective.

2. Pro gun advocates are much more prepared than gun control advocates to trust their fellow citizens to exercise their civil rights within the confines of Constitutionally compliant Law.

3. Pro gun advocates generally approach the question from the perspective of individual rights balanced by individual responsibility.

4. Gun control advocates generally approach the question from the perspective of the overall collective."

How many ways can you, an obvious gun control advocate, say "collective rights"?

How many ways can your opposition, obvious pro gun advocates say "individual rights"?

Thank you for demonstrating the general political philosophy of gun control advocates so eloquently.

Semper Fi,

[Glenn Vardy]

175. No Content

I summarized this discussion in post #69:

"I thank all, on both sides of the issue, for your input. Besides a small amount of drive-by BS, most of the posts contain legitimate responses to the two questions asked.

I derive from this non-scientific sample that:

1. Gun control advocates are much more prepared than pro gun advocates to subordinate individual civil rights to what they perceive as the benefit of the collective.

2. Pro gun advocates are much more prepared than gun control advocates to trust their fellow citizens to exercise their civil rights within the confines of Constitutionally compliant Law.

3. Pro gun advocates generally approach the question from the perspective of individual rights balanced by individual responsibility.

4. Gun control advocates generally approach the question from the perspective of the overall collective."

How many ways can you, an obvious gun control advocate, say "collective rights"?

How many ways can your opposition, obvious pro gun advocates say "individual rights"?

Thank you for demonstrating the general political philosophy of gun control advocates so eloquently.

Semper Fi,

How does any of that address what I said in the post you replied to? All you're doing is pigeon-holing all the pro and anti gun-control advocates then telling them what there position on the issue is.

[DWC]

187. I asked honest questions, and

for the most part, received honest answers.

I did not attempt, nor does anyone here need to be told what their position is or should be.

However, that does seem to be your Mission From God and I wish you well.

Semper Fi,

[Glenn Vardy]

147. "The People" - Richard Henry Lee Letter

"By comparing the Senate amendments with from below by carefully attending to the m the former will appear well calculated to enfeeble produce ambiguity--for instance--Rights res to the States or the People--The people here is evidently designed fo People of the United Slates, not of the Individual States the former is the Constitutional idea of the people--We the People &c. It was affirmed the Rights reserved by the States bills of rights did not belong to the States--I observed that then they belonged to the people of the States, but that this mode of expressing was evidently calculated to give the Residuum to the people of the U. Stares, which was the Constitutional language, and to deny it to the people of the Indiv. State--At least that it left room for cavil & false construction--They would not insert after people thereof--altho it was moved." - Richard Henry Lee to Patrick Henry, 14 September 1789.

Richard Henry Lee CLEARLY considered "the people" to be reference to a collective body, not to all individuals. If he thought that all the individuals of the U.S. were reserving rights in that amendment, it wouldn't exclude "the people" of the individual States and he wouldn't have a problem with it. But he IS having a problem with it because of WHICH BODY is being referred to by "the people."

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

149. Truth:

"The U.S. Constitution does NOT secure a right for YOU to carry a gun."

In fact, the 2nd Amendment protects the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS from infringement by any agency of the government, federal, state or local.

Rights such as this are attributes of our species just as having two eyes or the ability to speak are human attributes. This fact has been acknowledged by the US Supreme Court (Heller). Please note that in his dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens, while stating "Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution." does not disparage the essential existence of the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (for private non-military purposes).

Arguing that the US Supreme Court made a mistake is clearly purposeless here. The fact is that the essential right exists.

Further, the US Supreme Court has found that the 2A does protect this right and that this right is incorporated under the 14th.
It is abundantly clear that the framers held the belief in an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (for private non-military purposes).

What is it that you (plural)...(any of you) hope to gain in this argument?

[Glenn Vardy]

150. Real Truth

It is abundantly clear that the framers held the belief in an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (for private non-military purposes).

If that were the "truth," it would be clear to see from the debate of this amendment in the First Congress. Remember, we're looking for discussion of individuals owning firearms for private purposes unconnected to militia service.
----------------------

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 the 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.
--------------------------

It isn't there. This isn't a gun owning amendment, it's a militia amendment.

[Glenn Vardy]

151. Keeping Arms

"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."
---------------------------
The keep-guns-out-of-control advocates usually seize on this passage from the debate simply because it refers to "keeping arms." For no good reason, they claim it means "personally keep." But notice that Scott DOESN'T say that if religiously scrupulous persons weren't compelled to bear arms that it would lead to the violation of THEIR right to keep arms. No, Scott cosiders that "the people" are "keeping arms" when they have a MILITIA that can be depended upon and no recourse to a standing army.

[X_Digger]

152. The ability to raise a militia is *why* the right was protected.

That in no way, shape, or fashion, limits the right so protected.

The constitution doesn't 'grant' or 'confer' rights. It protects them.

See Cruikshank:

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

Hell, see 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.

Abuse of whose powers? Restrictions on whom?

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, or their extent, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments.

[Glenn Vardy]

154. Protecting Collective Righs

The constitution doesn't 'grant' or 'confer' rights. It protects them.

And the only rights that can be protected are the individual ones?

U.S. v. Cruikshank
"Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their COLLECTIVE RIGHTS. In the formation of a government, the people may confer upon it such powers as they choose. The government, when so formed, may, and when called upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection of the rights of its CITIZENS and THE PEOPLE within its jurisdiction.."

[X_Digger]

156. Any and all.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"..

Pretty simple, unless you try to spin, spin, spin the bill of rights as some kind of limitation on people, not the government.

Even if you somehow repealed the second amendment, the right wouldn't go away. It would just become an unenumerated right under the ninth at a federal level, or an enumerated right at the state level, due to the various state constitutional provisions.

[Glenn Vardy]

260. Any and all what?

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"..

Pretty simple, unless you try to spin, spin, spin the bill of rights as some kind of limitation on people, not the government.

I take it that when you say "people" you're referring to individuals.

Where have I said, or implied, that the Bill of Rights is a limitation on individuals? Or that it's not a limitation of the Federal Government? I've been saying ALL ALONG that the Second Amendment was intended to be a check against the Federal Governments powers in Article 1, Section 8. And by saying that the Second Amendment wasn't intended to secure personal rights, I'm NOT saying that it's intended to be a "limitation" on individuals. You can't address what I've said in my previous posts so you've BLATENTLY introduced straw.

[X_Digger]

273. Any and all right rights-- a direct response to your question in #154.

Where have I said, or implied, that the Bill of Rights is a limitation on individuals?

When you claim that 'the people' is always interchangeable with 'the state' or 'the body politic', and that 'the collective' alone has that right, you are claiming it is a right not assertable by individuals.

And by saying that the Second Amendment wasn't intended to secure personal rights, I'm NOT saying that it's intended to be a "limitation" on individuals.

Unmitigated bullshit.

[Glenn Vardy]

276. Why the difficulty understanding?

I said: "And by saying that the Second Amendment wasn't intended to secure personal rights, I'm NOT saying that it's intended to be a "limitation" on individuals."

X_Digger replied:

Unmitigated bullshit.

If it were a limitation on individuals, the limitation would be in the wording, like a law. I'm saying that it just doesn't address individuals owning guns. What's so hard to understand about that? Gun rights are recognized in State Constitutions only, and the power to regulate the private use of arms was retained by the States.

[X_Digger]

277. Feel free to set those goal posts down any time now.

You've danced up to and away from at least four different propositions--

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

Woops, those state constitutions, as well as literature at the time gives lie to your twisting..

Who does the right belong to?

Except, as we've seen, 'the people' is used in Federal and state documents that apply to individually assertable rights.

They're NOT individual rights.

And this the most absurd. If an individual can assert them in a claim, the right is individual.

Gun rights are recognized in State Constitutions only

And now the latest spin..

No, even if the second amendment were repealed, it would merely move from an enumerated right to an unenumerated one under the ninth amendment. I'm sure we'd have to raise a case similar to Roe to establish it, but I don't doubt the outcome.

[Glenn Vardy]

284. Reserved rights,

If an individual can assert them in a claim, the right is individual.

If "the people" of a State have the "sole" right to govern and regulate their internal police and a tyrannical Federal Government took control of that police force, would it be a violation of the Ninth Amendment?

Don't you see that THIS is how the FOUNDERS intended the Ninth Amendment to be applied? In a much later era, some judge may have ruled that an individual member of "the people" has the right to privacy protected by the Ninth. But it's NOT how the Founders INTENDED the amendment to be applied. The English language is imperfect, the Constitution is imperfect and the legal system is imperfect. You can't seize on an imperfect ruling in a much later era dealing with ONE amendment referring to "the people" and claim that THAT meaning is what the Framers intended with all the others.

[X_Digger]

290. In your interpretation..

The only 'people' intended to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure were what.. various state offices?

Ludicrous.

[Glenn Vardy]

295. Which body?

In your interpretation the only 'people' intended.........

You're still using the word "people" in the same way as you would if you invited some "people" to a party.

Look at this letter from a Founder during the ratification period. If "the people" to Patrick Henry Lee meant "people" as YOU claim it does, he wouldn't have any objections because all "people" in the United States would be having personal rights reserved. But he's objecting because it's unclear to him WHICH body is being referred to.


"By comparing the Senate amendments with from below by carefully attending to the m the former will appear well calculated to enfeeble produce ambiguity--for instance--Rights res to the States or the People--The people here is evidently designed fo People of the United Slates, not of the Individual States the former is the Constitutional idea of the people--We the People &c. It was affirmed the Rights reserved by the States bills of rights did not belong to the States--I observed that then they belonged to the people of the States, but that this mode of expressing was evidently calculated to give the Residuum to the people of the U. Stares, which was the Constitutional language, and to deny it to the people of the Indiv. State--At least that it left room for cavil & false construction--They would not insert after people thereof--altho it was moved." - Richard Henry Lee to Patrick Henry, 14 September 1789.

[X_Digger]

299. That is an objection to the federalists interpretation, not about the scope of rights.

RHL was quite vocal about his interpretation of the bill of rights.. He despised Hamilton's interpretation-- which would have basically meant that any rights and powers not acceded to the states would remain the purview of the federal government.

{I have} since waited to see the issue of the proposed amendts. to the Constitution, that I might give you the most {exact} account of that business. As they came from the H. of R. they were very far short of the wishes of our Convention, but as they are returned by the Senate they are certainly much weakened. You may be assured that nothing on my part was left undone to prevent this, and every possible effort was used to give success to all the Amendments proposed by our Country--We might as well have attempted to move Mount Atlas upon our shoulders--In fact, the idea of subsequent Amendments was delusion altogether, and so intended by the greater part of those who arrogated to themselves the name of Federalists. . .

. . . The preamble to the Amendments is realy curious--A careless reader would be apt to suppose that the amendments desired by the States had been graciously granted. But when the thing done is compared with that desired, nothing can be more unlike.

RHL wanted an even *stronger* restraint on the government, but couldn't get it.

RHL's interpretation, rather than Hamilton's, won. The federal government is granted only certain powers (stretching of the 'commerce' and 'necessary and proper' clauses notwithstanding). Other powers are set for the various states. Other powers and rights remain with the people.

[Glenn Vardy]

300. Meaning of "the people," not "scope of rights."

That is an objection to the federalists interpretation, not about the scope of rights.

Correct, but that's an irrelevant side-step.

The point you're trying to avoid is that he CLEARLY understands "the people" to be a phrase to identify a collective BODY.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

155. re: gun owning amendment

It has been adjudicated by due process to be exactly a gun owning amendment. You may feel free to join the ranks of those who deny the obvious and accepted realities. There are folks who say that there was no holocaust. There are those who deny men walked on the moon. Feel free.

The many writings from Signers and other Founders reveal what they believed. Regardless of what may be extent from the debate and record you presented, there is no question that the Founders BELIEVED in an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (apart from militia service for personal purposes.)

[X_Digger]

158. It doesn't have to be *there*..

We've both agreed that the bill of rights isn't exhaustive of a person's rights. This debate was about the scope of the government protection-- and many of these same arguments bled over into the debate around the Militia Act of 1792.

Here's another blurb for you.. re the 14th amendment..

In the enumeration of natural and personal rights to be protected, the framers of the Constitution apparently specified everything they could think of — "life," "liberty," "property," "freedom of speech," "freedom of the press," "freedom in the exercise of religion," "security of person," &c.; and then, lest something essential in the specifications should have been overlooked, it was provided in the ninth amendment that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage other rights not enumerated." ... All these rights are established by the fundamental law.

Will it be contended, sir, at this day, that any State has the power to subvert or impair the natural and personal rights of the citizen?

As citizens of the United States they have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Senator James Nye of Nevada, February 28, 1866, Senate debates on the 14th amendment (referring to the black freedmen).

There would have been no need for states' post-reconstruction 'black codes' laws to disarm freed slaves if the right only applied to militia service. (Or for that matter, the 'jim crow' laws of later years.)

[Glenn Vardy]

165. Yes It Does

It doesn't have to be there

You can make a claim about the Second Amendment protecting a personal right to own guns for private use, but if there isn't the slightest hint that that's what they're protecting in the debate, it's just an unsubstantiated opinion. In fact, the debate proves without doubt that they weren't protecting a personal right because it was suggested that certain individuals should PAY to be excused from participating in the exercise of the collective right.

[X_Digger]

167. You're running in circles..

1. You admit that the right protected by the second amendment predated the constitution, yes?

2. You admit that the second amendment is a restriction on government, yes?

3. Since that is the case, the second amendment is not a limit on the scope of the right, agreed? (Because it is not a right 'granted' (1.) by the second amendment, the second amendment therefore can't be a limit on that right. (2.))

Whether or not they mention personal protection as a part of the right when debating the second amendment is immaterial. Their intent was on placing limits on the government- keeping the government in check (see the preamble.)

Why would they even discuss a topic not related to restrictions on government in a debate whose intent is to come up with restrictions on government?!?

You've circled around to insinuating that the right was 'granted' or otherwise circumscribed by the second amendment (if it isn't in the debate, it's not there..)

If you really want to know whether or not the framers and people at the time expected to use arms for their own purposes, you need only look at the writing at the time.

Conceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made.
-- Roger Sherman

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
---Tench Coxe in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
---Samuel Adams, quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.
---Zachariah Johnson, Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
---Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2 (Article on the Bill of Rights)

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
--- Thomas Jefferson

[Glenn Vardy]

171. No, You Keep Side-Stepping

You're running in circles

No. You said that, in the Second Amendment debate in the First Congress, there "doesn't need to be" any discussion about individuals owning guns for private purposes. I said that there does need to be such discussion IF that's what this amendment was intended to protect. How is THAT me "running in circles?" It's you who's in denial. I also said that the debate actually proves that that's not what the amendment was intended to protect. It was suggested that certain persons should PAY a fee, "to be established by law," to get excused from participating in the exercise of this COLLECTIVE right. You don't PAY NOT to exercise a personal right.

[X_Digger]

172. That language was removed, for just such a reason.

Gee, we had idiots in congress then, too. Duh.

The second amendment is not a limit on people. What the framers debated about were limits of the government. That, in no way, shape, or form limits the right so protected.

If I said, "Pizza being necessary for late-night study sessions, the right of the people to grow and use tomatoes shall not be infringed." -- would you similarly assert that tomatoes are only used for pizza?

[Glenn Vardy]

174. What Reason?

That language was removed, for just such a reason. Gee, we had idiots in congress then, too. Duh.

In the end, they decided NOT to allow certain people to be able to pay a fee, "to be established by law," to get excused from participating in the exercise of the collective right. That DIDN'T change the collective right into a personal right. If you think it did, explain how that works.

[X_Digger]

176. Again, try reading the words I type, not the words you think I've typed..

You're assuming the antecedent, again.. "change the collective right into a personal right".

You haven't established that it actually *was* a collective right, so there is no 'change'.

eta: Have a read.. http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=001/llsj001.db&recNum=74&itemLink=r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28sj001133%29%29%230010075&linkText=1

(You may have to copy and paste the link, DU likes to mess up links)

Someone in the senate tried to add the words 'for the common defence' -- it was voted down.

[Glenn Vardy]

179. Established Collective Right

You haven't established that it actually *was* a collective right...

Yes I have. My explanation of the discussion about making certain persons pay a fee is that they were discussing a COLLECTIVE right but certain persons could pay to be EXCUSED from participating in the exercise of that collective right. If your interpretation is correct, they were talking about making them pay a fee, "to be established by law," to be excused from exercising their OWN personal right. NO CHANCE.

Here's more evidence.

Original Draft:
"..but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service IN PERSON."

The Framers WOULDN'T have said that those persons wouldn't be compelled to exercise a PERSONAL right "IN PERSON." As I said, it's a collective right, but certain persons wouldn't have been compelled to participate in the exercise of the collective right "in person."

[X_Digger]

182. You're pinning your hopes on language that *didn't* make it to ratification?!?

Am I reading that right?

LOL!!

Not to mention-- as we've determined, and you've admitted, we're talking about restrictions on government. It (the second amendment) has no power to set the scope of, or limit, the right protected (refer to the preamble).

I gotta say, it's entertaining to have one of these conversations. More contortions from you than a Cirque De Soleil performance.

[Glenn Vardy]

197. The Nature Of The Right Remains The Same

You're pinning your hopes on language that *didn't* make it to ratification?!?

If you think the nature of the right changed during the framing process, show how. They re-worded it a few times, but the nature of the right remained the same to the final article, except that they chose not to include a conscientious objector clause.

[X_Digger]

198. So you assert. That it changed significantly is obvious.

You haven't actually shown that the second amendment is anything other than a restriction on government.

The right protected by the second amendment pre-dates the constitution.

[Glenn Vardy]

200. Pre-Date Provisions

The right protected by the second amendment pre-dates the constitution.

So the right must be a personal right?

Over half of the State provisions at that time were VERY similar to these:

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

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

NEW HAMPSHIRE (June 2, 1784)
XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.

VIRGINIA (June 12, 1776)
13. 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;....

They look very similar to the first clause of the Second Amendment, don't they? THIS is the people bearing arms for State security and THIS is what the Second Amendment protects. It's got NOTHING to do with individuals carrying guns.

[X_Digger]

201. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

The right wasn't inherited from the articles of confederation, or some state's constitution- you're getting back to the idea of rights being 'granted'.

The right pre-dates the constitution, the articles of confederation, etc. A 'natural right' as it were. English common law would be the next step backward, but again, that doesn't 'grant' the right.

The second amendment protects that right- it tells the government to fuck off ('restrictive clauses', 'abuse of it's powers' from the preamble.) It does not say, "Oh this right only applies in these circumstances". If the bill of rights were exhaustive, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments.

If I said, "Pizza being necessary for successful late-night study sessions, the right of the people to grow and use tomatoes shall not be infringed." -- would you similarly assert that tomatoes are only to be used for pizza? That is *why* tomatoes are to be protected, but it does not limit the usage to that singular purpose.

[Glenn Vardy]

203. No Discussion Of "Natural Right" To Own Guns Either.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? The right wasn't inherited from the articles of confederation, or some state's constitution- you're getting back to the idea of rights being 'granted'. The right pre-dates the constitution, the articles of confederation, etc. A 'natural right' as it were.

Read our debate again. The absence of ANY discussion about a right to own guns for private purposes applies to "natural" rights as well.
--------------------------------------------------
1. discntnt_irny_srcsm
It is abundantly clear that the framers held the belief in an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (for private non-military purposes).


2. Glenn Vardy
If that were the "truth," it would be clear to see from the debate of this amendment in the First Congress. Remember, we're looking for discussion of individuals owning firearms for private purposes unconnected to militia service... (Text of Debate) It isn't there.


3. X_Digger
It doesn't have to be *there*.. We've both agreed that the bill of rights isn't exhaustive of a person's rights.

4. Glenn Vardy
You can make a claim about the Second Amendment protecting a personal right to own guns for private use, but if there isn't the slightest hint that that's what they're protecting in the debate, it's just an unsubstantiated opinion. In fact, the debate proves without doubt that they weren't protecting a personal right because it was suggested that certain individuals should PAY to be excused from participating in the exercise of the collective right.

5. X_Digger
You're running in circles

6. Glenn Vardy
No. You said that, in the Second Amendment debate in the First Congress, there "doesn't need to be" any discussion about individuals owning guns for private purposes. I said that there does need to be such discussion IF that's what this amendment was intended to protect. How is THAT me "running in circles?" It's you who's in denial. I also said that the debate actually proves that that's not what the amendment was intended to protect. It was suggested that certain persons should PAY a fee, "to be established by law," to get excused from participating in the exercise of this COLLECTIVE right. You don't PAY NOT to exercise a personal right.

7. X_Digger
That language was removed

8. Glenn Vardy
In the end, they decided NOT to allow certain people to be able to pay a fee, "to be established by law," to get excused from participating in the exercise of the collective right. That DIDN'T change the collective right into a personal right. If you think it did, explain how that works.

9. X_Digger
You haven't established that it actually *was* a collective right

10. Glenn Vardy
Yes I have. My explanation of the discussion about making certain persons pay a fee is that they were discussing a COLLECTIVE right but certain persons could pay to be EXCUSED from participating in the exercise of that collective right. If your interpretation is correct, they were talking about making them pay a fee, "to be established by law," to be excused from exercising their OWN personal right. NO CHANCE.

Here's more evidence.

Original Draft:
"..but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service IN PERSON."

The Framers WOULDN'T have said that those persons wouldn't be compelled to exercise a PERSONAL right "IN PERSON." As I said, it's a collective right, but certain persons wouldn't have been compelled to participate in the exercise of the collective right "in person."

11. X_Digger
You're pinning your hopes on language that *didn't* make it to ratification?!?

12. Glenn Vardy
If you think the nature of the right changed during the framing process, show how. They re-worded it a few times, but the nature of the right remained the same to the final article, except that they chose not to include a conscientious objector clause.

13. X_Digger
That it changed significantly is obvious... The right protected by the second amendment pre-dates the constitution

14. Glenn Vardy
So the right must be a personal right?

Over half of the State provisions at that time were VERY similar to these:

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

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

NEW HAMPSHIRE (June 2, 1784)
XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.

VIRGINIA (June 12, 1776)
13. 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;....

They look very similar to the first clause of the Second Amendment, don't they? THIS is the people bearing arms for State security and THIS is what the Second Amendment protects. It's got NOTHING to do with individuals carrying guns.
------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
I'm not the one being obtuse, am I?

[Glassunion]

204. Don't want to get in the middle of anything. Just an FYI.

Both Delaware and New Hampshire have since updated and ratified their constitutions.

Delaware: Article 1 Sec 20 “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.”

New Hampshire: Article 2 “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state”

[X_Digger]

208. Not to mention the debates around the 14th amendment..

In the enumeration of natural and personal rights to be protected, the framers of the Constitution apparently specified everything they could think of — "life," "liberty," "property," "freedom of speech," "freedom of the press," "freedom in the exercise of religion," "security of person," &c.; and then, lest something essential in the specifications should have been overlooked, it was provided in the ninth amendment that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage other rights not enumerated." ... All these rights are established by the fundamental law.

Will it be contended, sir, at this day, that any State has the power to subvert or impair the natural and personal rights of the citizen?

As citizens of the United States they have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Senator James Nye of Nevada, February 28, 1866, Senate debates on the 14th amendment (referring to the black freedmen).

[Glenn Vardy]

214. Hang on.......

In the enumeration of natural and personal rights to be protected, the framers of the Constitution apparently specified everything they could think of — "life," "liberty," "property," "freedom of speech," "freedom of the press," "freedom in the exercise of religion," "security of person," &c.; and then, lest something essential in the specifications should have been overlooked, it was provided in the ninth amendment that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage other rights not enumerated." ... All these rights are established by the fundamental law.

Will it be contended, sir, at this day, that any State has the power to subvert or impair the natural and personal rights of the citizen?

As citizens of the United States they have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense.


Senator James Nye of Nevada, February 28, 1866, Senate debates on the 14th amendment (referring to the black freedmen).

Who's words are "...and to keep and bear arms for self defence?"

This is what I find:
"In the enumeration of natural and personal rights to be protected, the framers of the Constitution apparently specified everything they could think of — "life," "liberty," "property," "freedom of speech," "freedom of the press," "freedom in the exercise of religion," "security of person," &c.; and then, lest something essential in the specifications should have been overlooked, it was provided in the ninth amendment that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage other rights not enumerated." ... All these rights are established by the fundamental law."

"Will it be contended, sir, at this day, that any State has the power to subvert or impair the natural and personal rights of the citizen? Will it be contended that the doctrine of "State sovereignty" has so far survived the wreck of it's progenitor, slavery, that we are yet aloof from the true construction of the Constitution?"
-------------------
A natural right to keep and bear arms isn't mentioned in that passage. Why not?

Anyway, this was an eventful period with conflicting views. I wouldn't rely on what Stephen P. Halbrook can pick out of it, if I were you.

[X_Digger]

218. You didn't look very hard, did you?

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=114



(Upper right corner.)

[Glenn Vardy]

221. The Military Context

"In the enumeration of natural and personal rights to be protected, the framers of the Constitution apparently specified everything they could think of-- "life," "liberty," "property," "freedom of speech," "freedom of the press," freedom in the exercise of religion," "security of person," &c,; and then, lest something essential in the specifications should have been overlooked, it was provided in the ninth amendment that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage other rights not enumerated." This amendment completed the document. It left no personal or natural right to be invaded or impaired by construction. All these rights are established by the fundamental law. Congress has no power to invade them; but it has power "to make all laws necessary and proper" to give them effective operation, and to restrain the respective States from infracting them." Will it be contended, sir, at this day, that any State has the power to subvert or impair the natural and personal rights of the citizen? Will it be contended that the doctrine of "State sovereignty" has so far survived the wreck of it's progenitor, slavery, that we are yet aloof from the true construction of the Constitution? I am aware, sir, that the political disease called "State sovereignty" with some minds has become chronic.......

....We have gone on, sir, wisely or unwisely, converting the colored population into beings of power through military discipline. We have taught one hundred and sixty thousand of them in the art of killing. We have, to some extent, instructed them in the rudiments of military organization. As citizens of the United States they have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defence.... More than that, sir, the colored man can point to his honorable scars, or to the grave of his companion in arms, and say, "We, too, have assisted in defending the Government."..."
--------------------------

There is NO connection made in this speech between "keep and bear arms for self-defence" and the Second Amendment. Look at the natural and personal rights from the U.S. Bor that he mentions. The Second Amendment isn't referred to.

[X_Digger]

236. Do you think Senator Nye expected only militia 'colored men' to defend themselves w/ arms?

Go back to the middle column on that loc link I gave you.

:)

[Glenn Vardy]

242. Essential Rights

Do you think Senator Nye expected only militia 'colored men' to defend themselves w/ arms?

No. But the most important part from that speech is where he SPECIFICALLY refers to the personal rights secured by the U.S. Constitution. If the Second Amendment was one of those personal rights, he would have mentioned it then, but he didn't. Again, you need documented evidence from founding era. This is just a reference to self-defence at a very turbulent time over half a century later.

In a First Congress debate on these amendments, James Madison tried to get the "essential" rights to apply to the States as well as Congress. The essential rights he listed were freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and trial by jury. Why didn't he list the Second Amendment if that secured a fundemental, natural right to own a gun?

[X_Digger]

243. Hehe, you didn't go back and read, I see.

Re your last para, why didn't Madison list search / seizure? The right to travel? (That one never made it into the constitution, btw-- OMG, it doesn't exist! *snort*).

[Glenn Vardy]

244. Equal/Civil Rights?

why didn't Madison list search / seizure?

That one's a right secured only to "the people." Fundamental rights extent their reach to ALL individuals including those not belonging to that collective body.

June 8, 1789--first Federal Congress.
James Madison: "Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:
"No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."
----------
During that debate, those rights were also referred to as "civil rights" and "essential rights." Why didn't he include the one dealing with a well regulated militia and the security of a free State? Maybe it's got NOTHING to do with equal/civil/essential rights

[X_Digger]

247. Arguing by absence, now?!? LOL

Madison didn't want a bill of rights at all, fearing that some would argue at some later date that only such rights as had been identified would be protected. The ninth and tenth were added you help preclude that.

See Hancock and Samuel Adams' work on what came to be known as the 'Massachusetts Compromise'.

[Glenn Vardy]

250. "Absense" of material suuporting YOU.

Arguing by absence, now?

Look, he didn't list the one about a "well regulated militia" because it's got NOTHING to do with "equal" or "civil" rights.

[X_Digger]

252. What a person said in one instance is not authoritative of the sum of their opinions..

Or does the fact that he didn't mention other, equally fundamental at the time, rights- like the right to travel- indicative of his lack of support for such a right?

Of course not.

Again, you're trying to claim that rights are limited by the bill of rights or what one person said at one time.

It doesn't work that way, no matter how much you huff and puff.

[Glenn Vardy]

209. Personal Rights Look Like This.

Both Delaware and New Hampshire have since updated and ratified their constitutions.

Delaware: Article 1 Sec 20 “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.”

New Hampshire: Article 2 “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state”

These two modern provisions are clearly INTENDED to protect a personal right to own and carry guns for private purposes. The terms used aren't new. The Framers used the same terms in their own State Constitutions when protecting personal rights, and if they were protecting personal rights in the Second Amendment, they WOULD have used the same terms, but they didn't. In EVERY State Constitution at that time, "the people" was ALWAYS a reference to the body-politic.

Sketches of American Policy
By NOAH WEBSTER.

"This association of all the individuals of a community is called the body politic or State... The members, spoken of COLLECTIVELLY, are called PEOPLE, spoken of SEVERALLY, they may be called CITIZENS..."


Bouviers Law Dictionary:
BODY POLITIC: " ..As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take COLLECTIVELY the name, of PEOPLE, or nation; and INDIVIDUALLY they are CITIZENS..."

[Glassunion]

210. .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[X_Digger]

206. Intentionally obtuse, it is. Thanks for clarifying.

1. discntnt_irny_srcsm
It is abundantly clear that the framers held the belief in an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (for private non-military purposes).


2. Glenn Vardy
If that were the "truth," it would be clear to see from the debate of this amendment in the First Congress. Remember, we're looking for discussion of individuals owning firearms for private purposes unconnected to militia service... (Text of Debate) It isn't there.

Why would the debate on a restriction on government (bill of rights) be expected to include the scope of the right so protected?

My car loan agreement doesn't include language on internal combustion!! Therefore internal combustion doesn't exist!

Duh.. because the scope of a car loan agreement is something else, not related to the fundamentals of how a car works. Even though you can't have a car without internal combustion.

Much as you'd like to hand-wave any and all of it away, you haven't established a 'collective' right to the exclusion of an individual right.

[Glenn Vardy]

231. Protecting The Militia

Why would the debate on a restriction on government (bill of rights) be expected to include the scope of the right so protected?

Look, when they were protecting free speech, they SPOKE about free speech. When they were protecting freedom of the press, they SPOKE about a free press. When they were protecting freedom of religion, they SPOKE about freedom of religion. When they were protecting the right to trial by jury, they SPOKE about trial by jury. When protecting the militia, the SPOKE about the militia. NO ONE spoke about a natural right to own guns in a debate that you think was about owning guns.

[X_Digger]

237. Does the first amendment protect 'expression'?

Does the fact that they didn't speak about 'freedom of expression' mean that it isn't part of the right?

Of course not.

[Glenn Vardy]

267. Let this sink in too

When they were protecting free speech, they SPOKE about free speech. When they were protecting freedom of the press, they SPOKE about a free press. When they were protecting freedom of religion, they SPOKE about freedom of religion. When they were protecting the right to trial by jury, they SPOKE about trial by jury. When they were protecting the militia, the SPOKE about the militia. NO ONE spoke about a natural right to own guns in a debate that you think was about owning guns.

[Glenn Vardy]

199. Completely Fabricated Quote

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
--- Thomas Jefferson

COMPLETELLY fabricated.

[iverglas]

312. how many days since this was posted?

And no reply, no retraction, no apology for misleading the assembled Guns forum.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=28065&mesg_id=28094

dougmalloy
Wed Dec-10-03 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
20. Bogus quotes

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms."

This quote is incomplete. The entire quote is "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own land)."

"The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Utter nonsense. There is not one shred of evidence that Thomas Jefferson ever in his life wrote or spoke such words. The quote is bogus.

Bogus Quotes Attributed to the Founders
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

Sadly, the person who posted the bogusness in 2003 is ...


as one will find are many of those who have posted it in the intervening years.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were a place where one could check one's disinformation before one propagated it? A place like ... oh ... the internet ...

[Glenn Vardy]

319. All the fake and snipped out-of-context quotes.

These guys should ask themselves why ALL the fake and snipped out-of-context quotes come from their side of the debate.

[iverglas]

324. have you visited the latest Orwell thread yet?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2792056#2793015

My post 24 (just the first part; it can be so hard to stay on topic here ...)

Feel free to weigh in!

Next, we'll do Gandhi ... and collective self-defence ...


These guys should ask themselves why ALL the fake and snipped out-of-context quotes come from their side of the debate.

We've also been trying to figure out for some time why their side of the debate finds support only in right-wing opinion sources. ;)

[Flyboy_451]

178. original intent...

This is probably the argument most contested by both sides of the RKBA disagreement, and I find it interesting that both sides will argue for their viewpoint based on modern interpretations or dictionary references (old or new), but seldom ever look to what our founding fathers themselves had to say on the issue. The following are quotes made by some of our founding fathers that describe their intentions quite well with regard to not only the right to arms, but to the proper role of government as well.

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 <1894>)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 )

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

Patrick Henry

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.

It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated.
James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention, December 2, 1829

"The security of right and property, is the great end of government." - United States Founding Father, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, "Father of the American Revolution", Samuel Adams, Samuel Adams, "The Writings of Samuel Adams", Harry Alonzo Cushing, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam¡¯s Sons, 1904), Vol. I, p. 157

"The Utopian schemes of leveling, and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable, as those which vest all property in the Crown, are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government unconstitutional." - United States Founding Father, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, "Father of the American Revolution", Samuel Adams, Samuel Adams, "The Writings of Samuel Adams", Harry Alonzo Cushing, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam¡¯s Sons, 1904), Vol. I, p. 135

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, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783

Thomas Jefferson--

Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.


I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.


The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But 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.

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for.

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
– Benjamin Franklin

We can argue until the end of time about what we want the wording of the second amendment to mean, but I think many of the above quotes speak pretty clearly to the idea that the intent was for an individual right, rather than a collective right. Granted, quotes do not carry the weight of law, but they do contribute to showing intent of those involved with framing our government, and I think to ignore them is to openly deny a willingness to look at the argument with an open mind.

JW

[Glenn Vardy]

180. Accurate Jefferson Quote

original intent...
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,)

Isn't it amazing how the source can be accurate but the quote altered.

The actual quote:
"No Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms in his own lands or tenements."

Note: Even in his OWN State, jefferson only proposed a right for FREEMEN to USE arms on their own lands. Note also that he doesn't use the military expression "bear arms" in this non-military context.

[Flyboy_451]

184. Thanks for noting corrections.

I am in the process of reviewing the documents quoted in my initial post. If I find that they are not accurate, I will modify my post as needed. As to your comment regarding the Jefferson quote, I was not implying that the intentions of the 2nd were to allow for anything more than the private ownership of arms.

Do you have any information that shows that any of the founding fathers thought that this should not be the case? I have seen many quotes from various founders over the years that show the general feeling was that it was indeed an individual right, and the only thing that opposing views have ever brought to my attention are passages that could be interpreted to show otherwise, but nothing that shows a clear intention of arms being held only by government entities. Any information you can provide would be welcomed and invited into a civil discussion.

JW

[Glenn Vardy]

196. Hope Things Are Clearer Now.

I was not implying that the intentions of the 2nd were to allow for anything more than the private ownership of arms. Do you have any information that shows that any of the founding fathers thought that this should not be the case?

No. Don't waste time looking for evidence of the Founders saying that they were "not" protecting a personal right to own guns for private purposes. That's like looking for evidence that there are "not" fairies at the bottom of your garden. They're just "not" there.

I have seen many quotes from various founders over the years that show the general feeling was that it was indeed an individual right

Quotes like the altered and snipped out-of-context ones that I've commented on? They don't say what you think they say and I hope my comments helped. If you're bombarded with propaganda about "guns, guns, guns, guns and guns" 24/7 then look at a quote about "giving up essential liberty" on a gun site, you might read it as "giving up guns."

[Glenn Vardy]

183. Accurate Madison Quote

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

Your second quote has ALSO been altered. Why would anyone want to alter these quotes if not to decieve? Here's the actual quote. Is madison talking about personal gun ownership for private purposes unconnected to an organized State militia?

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate GOVERNMENTS, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are APPOINTED, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments of the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local GOVERNMENTS chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers APPOINTED out of the militia by these GOVERNMENTS and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny of Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

[DWC]

185. Thank You.

Your post has gone to the top of my keeper file and, with your permission, I may endeavor to have it made into a poster.

Again, my thanks and

Semper Fi,

[Glenn Vardy]

186. Hamilton Quote In Context

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

Does anyone think that this "body" of citizens who are "little if at all inferior to" a full time army in "discipline" AREN'T the citizen soldiers of a "well regulated militia?"

[Glenn Vardy]

188. Coxe Quote In Context

He can't be talking about the Second Amendment because it was over a year before.

The ONLY concern raised at that time was that Congress could disarm the militia by FAILING to provide for the arming AND DISCIPLINING of the organize State militia. To THEM, to neglect those militia forces was to "disarm the militia," not confiscating the guns of individuals. Believe it or not, at that time, there wasn't a single State provision that protected a right for individuals to own guns for private purposes. And none of those provisions secured the right for the State Government, but for "the people" as a body. Bear this in mind before reading the quote.

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

[Glenn Vardy]

189. Accurate Quote And Context

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

Actual quote:
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them..."

This was a proposal that the State withdrew, and there's no evidence from the Source that Samuel Adams wrote it.
Why doesn't this withdrawn proposal say - "to prevent citizens from keeping their own arms?" No, they ALWAYS said "the people" when dealing with arms provisions. In this case, "their own arms" means their own MILITIA rather than being dependent on "standing armies" being raised for their State security.

[Glenn Vardy]

191. Richard Henry Lee Quote In Context

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

Notice how the source is twice as long as the quote provided. It's all part of the illusion.

"Taught alike" is the uniformity that comes when young militiamen are TRAINED TO ARMS. This isn't about fathers teaching their kids to shoot.

[Glenn Vardy]

192. Patrick Henry Quote In Context

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

Again, just two tiny snippets from the quote. Why not have more of the quote to get the proper context? They're debating who is going to pay for the MILITIA arms, the Federal or State Governments, not about gun rights for private purposes. "Every man" is every militiaman.

HENRY: "As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power between the two governments. To Congress is given the power of "arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." To the state legislatures is given the power of "appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." I observed before, that, if the power be concurrent as to arming them, it is concurrent in other respects. If the states have the right of arming them, &c., concurrently, Congress has a concurrent power of appointing the officers, and training the militia. If Congress have that power, it is absurd. To admit this mutual concurrence of powers will carry you into endless absurdity — that Congress has nothing exclusive on the one hand, nor the states on the other. The rational explanation is, that Congress shall have exclusive power of arming them, &c., and that the state governments shall have exclusive power of appointing the officers, &c. Let me put it in another light."

"May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of
arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. *THE GREAT OBJECT IS, THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED*. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? *EVERONE WHO IS ABLE MAY HAVE A GUN*. But we have learned, by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance; for sure I am that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot long exist. If gentlemen are serious when they suppose a concurrent power, where can be the impolicy to amend it? Or, in other words, to say that Congress shall not arm or discipline them, till the states shall have refused or neglected to do it? This is my object. I only wish to bring it to what they themselves say is implied. Implication is to be the foundation of our civil liberties, and when you speak of arming the militia by a concurrence of power, you use implication. But implication will not save you, when a strong army of veterans comes upon you. You would be laughed at by the whole world for trusting your safety implicitly to implication."

[Glenn Vardy]

193. Patrick Henry Quote in Context 2

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?

"We" here means their own State.

Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress?

That's about the States militia being under the States direction.

If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"Our own hands" doesn't mean the hands of individuals, it means the hands of the State.

[Glenn Vardy]

194. Accurate Hamilton Quote In Context

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

Again, why is their so little of it? Because without the context people could read into the quote things that aren't there, like a suggestion for a right for individuals to own guns for private purposes unconnected to the militia.

"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 of military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, 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 members of the people, would not fall far short of a million pounds. 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."

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size, upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it."

[Glenn Vardy]

195. Jefferson Quote Context

As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 )

Thomas Jefferson said the word "gun" in a letter to a friend and we're supposed to think that it sheads some light on the "original intent" of the Second Amendment?

[Starboard Tack]

159. "I trust in my fellow citizens to do the same. "

If you really do, then why carry a concealed weapon on your person?
That's why I'm having this debate.

[DWC]

314. "I trust in my fellow citizens to do the same. " However...

"There will always be criminals and crazies and they are responsible to society for their individual actions. Unless I become one of them, I am not and shall not suffer limitations beyond the Constitution because of them.

Why are we having this debate - really?"

Semper Fi,

[ileus]

190. The sad part is there should be no debate over the most basic civil right.