I agree.
Heller's interpretation though greatly reduces the options available unfortunately. And that is why I referenced that interpretation/holding.
Lots of calls for gun control to stop mass shootings and gun violence.
- Thread starter Headhunter
- Start date
I agree.
Heller's interpretation though greatly reduces the options available unfortunately. And that is why I referenced that interpretation/holding.
What per se are common sense laws with gun control that would have stopped this guy from killing people. I will concede that the kits to modify guns should be looked at, but I wish people would use common sense in life before placing more laws on abiding citizens and realize that there will always be evil in the world. You can’t legislate that away.
Why don't you ever suggest googling Mexico and its success?
I'm not near a map. What geographic borders does Australia have?
Here’s one analysis as regards the Australian experiment with gun control. It seems to offer evidence counter to what you believe.
https://fee.org/articles/the-australia-model-for-gun-control-is-useless/
Ah, but governmental tyranny could never happen in a civilized Western nation like the USA or .....Spain, right, GL? Would you call these hypotheticals?
https://fee.org/articles/catalonia-shows-the-danger-of-disarming-civilians/
https://fee.org/articles/catalonia-shows-the-danger-of-disarming-civilians/
Last edited:
More food for thought for GL and those who think like him (her?).
https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/gun-control-bigger-threat-mass-murderers/
https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/gun-control-bigger-threat-mass-murderers/
i'm just glad to see he's found a safe IP address to post from.
I am a bright guy. I watched it unfold with my own two eyes.
I saw it on TV also. I must have missed the part about the ATF taking flamethrowers to the compound, and tanks firing into the compound.
Two FBI “combat vehicles” poured tear gas in the building and were joined by Bradly Tanks that fired tear gas canisters through the windows. It wasn’t until after the fact that the govnment admitted the canisters were prone to starting fires. David Koresh was a complete scum bag. The women and children that were burned to death were not.
So now your argument against gun control laws is that we share a border with Canada and Mexico?
Correct. They just set them on fire using two separate devices instead of one.
Never said that governmental tyranny couldn't happen in a civilized Western nation. What I posted was that I trust our system of governance and our laws to protect us from tyranny. I believe we can have gun control laws while still protecting against governmental tyranny.
You seem to be arguing it is an all or nothing scenario, which I reject. The notion that guns is the only thing or the most important element holding back governmental tyranny in this country is absurd. It ignores the other checks and balances that exist as well as the civil liberty protections that exist.
What you continue to ignore though is that the government had valid court issued search and arrest warrants. Therefore, a United States Magistrate Judge believed there was enough evidence to establish probable cause that laws had been violated (or were being violated) and issued those warrants. The government did not just show up at the compound seeking to enter the premises illegally and in violation of the Constitution. In fact, the opposite was true.
Now, perhaps you think it is acceptable for United States citizens to engage in a shoot out with federal officials when those officials are executing valid warrants. I don't though nor do I believe most would think such action is reasonable.
Koresh and his followers could have simply followed the law and had their day in court, but instead, they decided to start a mini-war with federal officials who were executing valid warrants. That is unacceptable and your defense of it is frankly troublesome.
This piece offers a good perspective/reminder of exactly what the purpose of the 2nd amendment and all of the 10 amendments included in the Bill of Rights was.
These 10 "amendments" weren't really amendments at all in the sense that we understand subsequent amendments.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452368/bret-stephens-guns-columnist-does-not-understand
These 10 "amendments" weren't really amendments at all in the sense that we understand subsequent amendments.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452368/bret-stephens-guns-columnist-does-not-understand
And this brief offers a strong rebuttal to the interpretation given in that National Review opinion piece.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_historians.pdf
Yes it does.
btw, I'm amazed that you were able to read that entire brief and understand the argument in less than three minutes.
BTW, DC has recently lost another gun ban fight and its AG has intelligibility concluded that an appeal to the SCOTUS isn't worthwhile.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...t-blocks-strict-dc-concealed-carry-permit-law
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.5178976e7ad2
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...t-blocks-strict-dc-concealed-carry-permit-law
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.5178976e7ad2
Convenient response. But ok.
Still, the counter-argument to NR's (and the no-gun control crowd) argument remains strong.
Disagree. It was a well crafted rebuttal, but not strong on the actual facts.
I completely disagree and I doubt you would ever admit it was strong given your presuppositions. However, it is posted for those in the middle and those who are willing to seriously consider both arguments.
Another link for those same individuals:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
These bump-stocks everyone is in an uproar about came about after Obama's ATF approved them in 2010.
Just as one example, this passage contains a number of ridiculous assertions:
Madison was primarily but not exclusively concerned
with protecting individual rights, and this placed him at
the leading edge of American thinking during this
period. He was arguably the first major thinker to
recognize how the protection of rights in a republic
differed from a monarchy. There, the problem was to
protect the people as a whole against the concentrated
power of the state. In a republic, by contrast, the chief
problem was to protect individuals and minorities against
popular majorities wielding power through the
legislature. Rakove, Original Meanings, 310-318, 330-336.
But as the eventual Tenth Amendment demonstrates,
Madison also intended to rebut Anti-Federalist charges
of “consolidation” by affirming the reserved powers of
the states and people, in a manner akin to the Second
Amendment.
Madison was primarily but not exclusively concerned
with protecting individual rights, and this placed him at
the leading edge of American thinking during this
period. He was arguably the first major thinker to
recognize how the protection of rights in a republic
differed from a monarchy. There, the problem was to
protect the people as a whole against the concentrated
power of the state. In a republic, by contrast, the chief
problem was to protect individuals and minorities against
popular majorities wielding power through the
legislature. Rakove, Original Meanings, 310-318, 330-336.
But as the eventual Tenth Amendment demonstrates,
Madison also intended to rebut Anti-Federalist charges
of “consolidation” by affirming the reserved powers of
the states and people, in a manner akin to the Second
Amendment.
Again, I disagree with this characterization as I am sure you would disagree with the quotes I could give from the NR opinion piece that I believe to be ridiculous assertions. I have no expectation that you are ever going to change your mind on this though so there is no point in talking in circles about it.
So dismiss it if you want. It is there for those who would like to research this issue in greater detail.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/02/c...s-mind-on-2nd-amendment-after-vegas-massacre/
The glaring hole in the argument against the 2nd Amendment being about the individual right is that the 2nd Amendment is contained within a document that spelled out the rights of the individual.
Well regulated did not mean regulated as we know the word today. It meant trained. And militia referred to every person not in the federal government. The 2nd Amendment has as much to do with a collective right reserved for an organized armed force as the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Amendments do. The Bill of Rights specifically limited the power of the federal government. The 2nd Amendment is very specific when it refers to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If that was meant for only people in an organized militia, it would have specified that.
Well regulated did not mean regulated as we know the word today. It meant trained. And militia referred to every person not in the federal government. The 2nd Amendment has as much to do with a collective right reserved for an organized armed force as the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Amendments do. The Bill of Rights specifically limited the power of the federal government. The 2nd Amendment is very specific when it refers to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If that was meant for only people in an organized militia, it would have specified that.
Many argue that the entire text does do just that:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It is the well regulated militia that is necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms clause exists within that framework.
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." - United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939).
Many people lacking a basic understanding of language (or often pretending they lack it) perhaps.
So Supreme Court Justices, legal experts, linguistics and writing experts, historians, etc. all lack a basic understanding of language or pretend to?
I won't disagree that the interpretation of this amendment has been debated due to its ungrammatical nature. However, to argue the interpretation (which was dominate for a long time) that the militia clause is controlling is somehow based on a lack of basic linguistic understanding is rather disingenuous.
Last edited:
