Well you guys are much smarter than me, 2nd amendment (1 Viewer)

[IC FBGCav]

What rights does the 2nd Amendment give?

 

[Your Mother's Twin Sister]

We are arming ourselves to defend against those Imperialist British pigs.

Google it.

 

[Brony]

The right to go for seconds at thanksgiving. Yum!

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Good luck getting a straight answer out of this one. Most people I see who use it to "win" an argument are inventing things out of whole cloth.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

Well you guys are much smarter than me I am, 2nd amendment

Fixed this for you dummy

 

[NCCommish]

For most of the history of this country it was held that the 2nd amendment conferred no constitutional rights for individual gun ownership. Your right to own a gun so that you could serve in the militia was protected but that was it. As recently as 1991 the chief justice of the Supreme Court said as much. But the NRA learned a lesson on paying for scholarship. They did so and suddenly people were finding a right to unlimited gun ownership culminating in Heller but by then it was really pretty much a done deal. NRA politicians had gutted gun laws pretty good by then.

 

[otello]

What rights does the 2nd Amendment give?

what or which rights?

 

[otello]

From wiki on heller

Since the June 2008 ruling, over 80 different cases have been heard in lower federal courts on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws.[69][70] These courts have heard lawsuits in regard to bans of firearm possession by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.[69][70] Also, cases have been heard on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting certain types of weapons, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and/or specific types of weapons attachments. In addition, courts have heard challenges to laws barring guns in post offices and near schools and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, carrying of concealed weapons, types of ammunition and possession of unregistered firearms.[69][70]

The courts have upheld most of these laws as being constitutional.[70] The basis for the lower court rulings is the paragraph near the end of the Heller ruling that states:

Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms.[71]

Consistently since the Heller ruling, the lower federal courts have ruled that almost all gun control measures as presently legislated are lawful and that according to UCLA professor of constitutional law Adam Winkler: "What gun rights advocates are discovering is that the vast majority of gun control laws fit within these categories."[69]

 

[timschochet]

For most of the history of this country it was held that the 2nd amendment conferred no constitutional rights for individual gun ownership. Your right to own a gun so that you could serve in the militia was protected but that was it. As recently as 1991 the chief justice of the Supreme Court said as much. But the NRA learned a lesson on paying for scholarship. They did so and suddenly people were finding a right to unlimited gun ownership culminating in Heller but by then it was really pretty much a done deal. NRA politicians had gutted gun laws pretty good by then.

That Heller really screwed things up didn't he? It's all one big catch-22 now.

 

[NCCommish]

For most of the history of this country it was held that the 2nd amendment conferred no constitutional rights for individual gun ownership. Your right to own a gun so that you could serve in the militia was protected but that was it. As recently as 1991 the chief justice of the Supreme Court said as much. But the NRA learned a lesson on paying for scholarship. They did so and suddenly people were finding a right to unlimited gun ownership culminating in Heller but by then it was really pretty much a done deal. NRA politicians had gutted gun laws pretty good by then.

That Heller really screwed things up didn't he? It's all one big catch-22 now.

Up early aren't you? You are west coast right?

 

[otello]

From wiki on McDonald, the 2010 ussc case which applied 2d to states:

In People v. Aguilar (2013), the Illinois Supreme Court summed up the central Second Amendment findings in McDonald:

Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that individual self-defense is the central component of the Second Amendment right (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036).[21]

 

[dparker713]

Do you want to know what the current jurisprudence says or what we think it should say?

 

[timschochet]

For most of the history of this country it was held that the 2nd amendment conferred no constitutional rights for individual gun ownership. Your right to own a gun so that you could serve in the militia was protected but that was it. As recently as 1991 the chief justice of the Supreme Court said as much. But the NRA learned a lesson on paying for scholarship. They did so and suddenly people were finding a right to unlimited gun ownership culminating in Heller but by then it was really pretty much a done deal. NRA politicians had gutted gun laws pretty good by then.

That Heller really screwed things up didn't he? It's all one big catch-22 now.

Up early aren't you? You are west coast right?

Yeah, have a meeting later this morning.

 

[NCCommish]

From wiki on McDonald, the 2010 ussc case which applied 2d to states:

In People v. Aguilar (2013), the Illinois Supreme Court summed up the central Second Amendment findings in McDonald:

Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that individual self-defense is the central component of the Second Amendment right (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036).[21]

Which would be great if that was true. But as I stated earlier the word militia was used with reason. And the history makes it obvious that an unlimited right of gun ownership was not the writers intent. Which kind of kills Scalia's originalist stance.

 

[NCCommish]

For most of the history of this country it was held that the 2nd amendment conferred no constitutional rights for individual gun ownership. Your right to own a gun so that you could serve in the militia was protected but that was it. As recently as 1991 the chief justice of the Supreme Court said as much. But the NRA learned a lesson on paying for scholarship. They did so and suddenly people were finding a right to unlimited gun ownership culminating in Heller but by then it was really pretty much a done deal. NRA politicians had gutted gun laws pretty good by then.

That Heller really screwed things up didn't he? It's all one big catch-22 now.

Up early aren't you? You are west coast right?

Yeah, have a meeting later this morning.

Well I hope it goes well. Nice play on Heller.

 

[otello]

Do you want to know what the current jurisprudence says or what we think it should say?

 

[otello]

From wiki on McDonald, the 2010 ussc case which applied 2d to states:

In People v. Aguilar (2013), the Illinois Supreme Court summed up the central Second Amendment findings in McDonald:

Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that individual self-defense is the central component of the Second Amendment right (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036).[21]

Which would be great if that was true. But as I stated earlier the word militia was used with reason. And the history makes it obvious that an unlimited right of gun ownership was not the writers intent. Which kind of kills Scalia's originalist stance.

Just consider it part of the penumbra.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What rights does the 2nd Amendment give?

1. Own arms.

2. Bear arms.

 

[NCCommish]

From wiki on McDonald, the 2010 ussc case which applied 2d to states:

In People v. Aguilar (2013), the Illinois Supreme Court summed up the central Second Amendment findings in McDonald:

Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that individual self-defense is the central component of the Second Amendment right (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036).[21]

Which would be great if that was true. But as I stated earlier the word militia was used with reason. And the history makes it obvious that an unlimited right of gun ownership was not the writers intent. Which kind of kills Scalia's originalist stance.

Just consider it part of the penumbra.

Except that isn't the argument. The argument is the second specifically and unequivocally supports a constitutional right to personal gun ownership for anything other than use in the militia,

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That's redundant. It's a certain type of militia, one called up consisting of citizens who own and bear arms. It's an overlapping and simultaneous power of the States and right of the People. The commas are there for equivalency, not exclusion.

 

[NCCommish]

That's redundant. It's a certain type of militia, one called up consisting of citizens who own and bear arms. It's an overlapping and simultaneous power of the States and right of the People. The commas are there for equivalency, not exclusion.

You had one constitutional right in regards to guns. You could own one to serve in the militia. There was common law precedent for individual ownership that the founders recognized but they had no intent of enshrining such an individual right into the Constitution. This went without dispute for over 200 years. Heck when the Constitution was written you weren't allowed to keep a loaded gun in your house in Boston. The founders understood gun control. Moving forward in time it was legal for towns to require you to turn in your guns to the sheriff until you left. Right up into the 90s when the SC chief justice called an individual right to gun ownership a hoax being perpetrated by the NRA.

 

[sports_fan]

Thank you for the acknowledgement

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So you're going to investigate every gun owner's intent to determine if he has a right to own his gun?

 

[NCCommish]

So you're going to investigate every gun owner's intent to determine if he has a right to own his gun?

No. Never said that someone couldn't own a gun. Just said an individual right isn't constitutionally protected. Also pretty much the government can put serious restrictions on ownership. All sorts of restrictions existed prior to the writing of the Constitution and they continued unchallenged after its ratification.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But a Constitutional Amendment overwrites all that. Don't forget regardless of what could be done in MA states like SC had to be convinced to join the Union. MA was very Torry. Who asked for the BOR? It wasn't Mass. It was for States who were concerned they were creating an entity that would override their freedoms. You really think all 13 would have signed on if they had been told that one day the Feds could seize or outlaw their muskets just like the Royal government in Massachusetts? Doubt it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

People also constantly overlook the 3rd & 4th Amendment too. The government can't come in your house and they can't arrest you without cause but they can come in you house and arrest you for owning a musket?

 

[NCCommish]

But a Constitutional Amendment overwrites all that. Don't forget regardless of what could be done in MA states like SC had to be convinced to join the Union. MA was very Torry. Who asked for the BOR? It wasn't Mass. It was for States who were concerned they were creating an entity that would override their freedoms. You really think all 13 would have signed on if they had been told that one day the Feds could seize or outlaw their muskets just like the Royal government in Massachusetts? Doubt it.

Doubt what you will. We have Madison's notes. We have what was said on the floor of Congress as they wrote it. It was all about militias. Every adult white male could be required to serve and was expected to bring a gun from home. So you had the right to own a gun so that you could fulfill your duty to serve in the militia if called up.We don't have militias anymore.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I hear you and I'm saying all 13 states would not have signed on to that. I'd look at Rutledge's papers before Madison on that point.

 

[chauncey]

It is cute how people try to use the constitution to justify their views on some issues and then completely ignore it on other issues. Not you specifically NCC, just in general.

Those on the left certainly love to take a strict stand on #2 while playing fast and loose with #1 and #10. I am sure those on the right do it too but it doesn't fit my narrative to provide an example.

ETA: Some solid answers ITT. I always enjoy threads that provide some history lessons.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

By the way the point is again redundant, if a person owns a gun how will the state know they do not own it for purposes of serving in a militia in a crisis if called? You're going to exclude that as his motive somehow?

 

[dparker713]

That's redundant. It's a certain type of militia, one called up consisting of citizens who own and bear arms. It's an overlapping and simultaneous power of the States and right of the People. The commas are there for equivalency, not exclusion.

Which commas? Cause there's either 2 or 4 depending on the version.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That's redundant. It's a certain type of militia, one called up consisting of citizens who own and bear arms. It's an overlapping and simultaneous power of the States and right of the People. The commas are there for equivalency, not exclusion.

Which commas? Cause there's either 2 or 4 depending on the version.

Take your pick, but I'm probably thinking of the one with 3 commas, 4 clauses.

 

[Christo]

But a Constitutional Amendment overwrites all that. Don't forget regardless of what could be done in MA states like SC had to be convinced to join the Union. MA was very Torry. Who asked for the BOR? It wasn't Mass. It was for States who were concerned they were creating an entity that would override their freedoms. You really think all 13 would have signed on if they had been told that one day the Feds could seize or outlaw their muskets just like the Royal government in Massachusetts? Doubt it.

Doubt what you will. We have Madison's notes. We have what was said on the floor of Congress as they wrote it. It was all about militias. Every adult white male could be required to serve and was expected to bring a gun from home. So you had the right to own a gun so that you could fulfill your duty to serve in the militia if called up.We don't have militias anymore.

Or do we? Who are you to say whether or not the federal government should have the ability to call up the militia in a time of national emergency?

 

[belljr]

You are not required to wear long sleeves

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

For anyone so inclined here are Madison's Federalist Papers Nos. 29 and 46 which I believe NCC was referring to.

 

[tommyboy]

What rights does the 2nd Amendment give?

To keep and bear arms

 

[Fennis]

Number two? You have the right to food money. Providing, of course, you don't mind a little investigation and humiliation. Also if you cross your fingers rehabilitation. It's important that you know your rights. OP -These are your rights.

Hey say Wang.

 

[NCCommish]

But a Constitutional Amendment overwrites all that. Don't forget regardless of what could be done in MA states like SC had to be convinced to join the Union. MA was very Torry. Who asked for the BOR? It wasn't Mass. It was for States who were concerned they were creating an entity that would override their freedoms. You really think all 13 would have signed on if they had been told that one day the Feds could seize or outlaw their muskets just like the Royal government in Massachusetts? Doubt it.

Doubt what you will. We have Madison's notes. We have what was said on the floor of Congress as they wrote it. It was all about militias. Every adult white male could be required to serve and was expected to bring a gun from home. So you had the right to own a gun so that you could fulfill your duty to serve in the militia if called up.We don't have militias anymore.

Or do we? Who are you to say whether or not the federal government should have the ability to call up the militia in a time of national emergency?

We don't have militias. We don't have conscription either. We have an all volunteer force and a National Guard. We don't need militias, we don't want militias. Militias were meant to replace a standing army. Which we have.

 

[MaxThreshold]

It is cute how people try to use the constitution to justify their views on some issues and then completely ignore it on other issues. Not you specifically NCC, just in general.

Those on the left certainly love to take a strict stand on #2 while playing fast and loose with #1 and #10. I am sure those on the right do it too but it doesn't fit my narrative to provide an example.

ETA: Some solid answers ITT. I always enjoy threads that provide some history lessons.

This is a great post.

 

[BowieMercs]

Number two? You have the right to food money. Providing, of course, you don't mind a little investigation and humiliation. Also if you cross your fingers rehabilitation. It's important that you know your rights. OP -These are your rights.

Hey say Wang.

+1 for Clash reference. -2 for using British guys' songs about rights

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

It is cute how people try to use the constitution to justify their views on some issues and then completely ignore it on other issues. Not you specifically NCC, just in general.

Those on the left certainly love to take a strict stand on #2 while playing fast and loose with #1 and #10. I am sure those on the right do it too but it doesn't fit my narrative to provide an example.

ETA: Some solid answers ITT. I always enjoy threads that provide some history lessons.

What does fast and loose with #1 mean?

 

[John Bender]

All you need to know

 

[joffer]

It is cute how people try to use the constitution to justify their views on some issues and then completely ignore it on other issues. Not you specifically NCC, just in general.

Those on the left certainly love to take a strict stand on #2 while playing fast and loose with #1 and #10. I am sure those on the right do it too but it doesn't fit my narrative to provide an example.

ETA: Some solid answers ITT. I always enjoy threads that provide some history lessons.

This is a great post.

except that it's horrible

 

[Jules Winnfield]

You have the right to bare arms

Unless you are fat and your arms are saggy

 

[Uruk-Hai]

It is cute how people try to use the constitution to justify their views on some issues and then completely ignore it on other issues. Not you specifically NCC, just in general.

Those on the left certainly love to take a strict stand on #2 while playing fast and loose with #1 and #10. I am sure those on the right do it too but it doesn't fit my narrative to provide an example.

ETA: Some solid answers ITT. I always enjoy threads that provide some history lessons.

What does fast and loose with #1 mean?

Bump

I'd like to hear an answer to this, too

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I'm hoping it's about Kim Davis.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Good luck getting a straight answer out of this one. Most people I see who use it to "win" an argument are inventing things out of whole cloth.

The "answer" to the gun problem in America is really far more complex than the typical arguments I see on this board, and have seen on this board for years, by the same people, giving the same arguments, going circular, going nowhere.

The people who are against guns, don't see much hope in changing their minds.

The people for guns, don't see much hope in changing their minds.

Guns aren't going away. This isn't just a social issue, it's a jobs/economy issue. Taking away guns is taking away jobs. I'm not trying to lean that on either side of the fence, it's just the reality of it. Politically, moves that start taking jobs away, a lot of them, isn't going to fly well out there.

Sadly, both sides have a lot of ignorance. People with guns who think they have all the answers. People without guns who have no experience with guns at all, deciding what others with guns should do.

My solution is simple. I think Robert Heinlein was onto something ( though he wasn't exactly reinventing the wheel)

Mandatory conscription of all youth, starting in what should be their senior year of high school and extending to three years of compulsory service, either in the military, or in a government program or overseas program like the Peace Corps. You give three years, mandatory, in a formalized chain of command structure. I think it's the only way you get universal indoctrination into the expectations of adults in this society. It's not all about you, you'll have to work as a team, there are greater goals than just what you want.

I honestly feel you'd have a lot fewer worthless jack offs if more people spent time having to dig a ditch, fill a sandbag, do log PT, face inspection, learn to march, learn to clean a toilet, understand the value of time.

I personally would prefer a society where young people felt a duty to surrender their seats to the elderly on a bus. Where doors are held open for people. Where people are called Sir and Ma'am normally. Where basic civility and duty and respect are seen as the baseline standard.

If everyone is exposed to firearms, taught to handle them safely, and their limitations and role, I think you'd get more people making informed decisions on whether they'd want them for the rest of their life.

Are you going to still get some douchebags and screw ups and nut jobs? ( Digging ditches didn't make Doctor Detroit civil did it? But at least he'll stump for Wounded Warrior) Sure. But you've trained the rest of society how to handle them as well. And honestly I could see worse things in the world than a bunch of uniformed 18-20 year olds, military based or not, to do things like building new homes, creating public gardens, cleaning up the city for civic good, providing services for the community, helping children in need. Go overseas and dig a well for people without clean water.

Gun control is about people control. Not all people control is bad. Sometimes you just need an environment to let people know that being a total ####### ### hole isn't acceptable.

You want more responsible people, then show them the cost of not being responsible. Want to vote? Earn it. Give service. Want to have your kids be eligible to go to college? Give service. Want public office? All your kids must conscripted and sent to any front line station.

Fantasy football as a community is a billion dollar business. And in all my time in fantasy football, the only time I've ever seen anyone openly and formally give to any charity at all is Matt Waldman with the Rookie Scouting Portfolio. I've said it before, if every FF league out there gave 10 percent of their league pot to things like youth sports or Toys For Tots or youth programs or tutoring, think of the kind of real world massive impact that would be. And beyond that, you could save music programs all across the country in schools. Support after school programs for kids. But the reality is most people just don't give a ####.

You can't make people give a ####. You can however make them dig enough ditches and do enough push ups until they understand it's not all about them. Imagine if Otis spent less time whining about his first world problems, his high paying job and why he can't get more and do less, all because he had to spend three years of his youth filling sandbags and actually having to do things for the greater good of the community around him.

Fix the entitled ### hole problem, and you'll fix most of the gun problem. And lot of you guys are just that, entitled white western washed ### holes complaining about your first world woes who probably could have gotten some real life perspective if you simply had to dig a few ditches in your life.

http://i.imgur.com/hF2qQq6.gif

 

[Henry Ford]

The right to hunt bears for their arms.

 

[MaxThreshold]

It is cute how people try to use the constitution to justify their views on some issues and then completely ignore it on other issues. Not you specifically NCC, just in general.

Those on the left certainly love to take a strict stand on #2 while playing fast and loose with #1 and #10. I am sure those on the right do it too but it doesn't fit my narrative to provide an example.

ETA: Some solid answers ITT. I always enjoy threads that provide some history lessons.

This is a great post.

except that it's horrible

i respect your opinion.

 

[Christo]

But a Constitutional Amendment overwrites all that. Don't forget regardless of what could be done in MA states like SC had to be convinced to join the Union. MA was very Torry. Who asked for the BOR? It wasn't Mass. It was for States who were concerned they were creating an entity that would override their freedoms. You really think all 13 would have signed on if they had been told that one day the Feds could seize or outlaw their muskets just like the Royal government in Massachusetts? Doubt it.

Doubt what you will. We have Madison's notes. We have what was said on the floor of Congress as they wrote it. It was all about militias. Every adult white male could be required to serve and was expected to bring a gun from home. So you had the right to own a gun so that you could fulfill your duty to serve in the militia if called up.We don't have militias anymore.

Or do we? Who are you to say whether or not the federal government should have the ability to call up the militia in a time of national emergency?

We don't have militias. We don't have conscription either. We have an all volunteer force and a National Guard. We don't need militias, we don't want militias. Militias were meant to replace a standing army. Which we have.

So what you're saying is things change. Interesting concept.