Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There isn't a militia clause. It clearly states the right of the people. The 2nd Amendment didn't give any rights to the states or federal government, just as the other 9 didn't.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.
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.
Big water. Ocean water.I'm not near a map. What geographic borders does Australia have?
There isn't a militia clause.
Have you bothered to read the historical documents from the time the Constitution was created? Have you bothered to read any of the original state constitutions?
Search warrants were issued and the ATF chose to raid the compound of a fruity religious cult knowing they were paranoid and well armed.
The ATF decided it would show the Branch Dividions who was boss, and raided the compound with 100 or more black uniformed, very heavily armed troops, a military style raid.
On well armed and paranoid religious zealots who had no idea who was attacking them or why.
The Branch Dividions we’re wrong in how they reacted, horribly wrong. But in my opinion the ATF provoked an Insane reaction when it didn’t have to.
So because the ATF chose to execute valid warrants, they are to blame? Come on.
Well considering what the ATF knew about the cult and the weapons they had, what did you expect them to do?
Did their leader know though what was going on? Yep.
The ATF provoked an insane reaction by executing valid warrants and protecting themselves from what they suspected was present inside the compound? Do you really believe this stuff?
I can agree with you that there were mistakes made by the federal officials. However, again, all Koresh and his followers had to do was allow the agents to execute their warrants and have their day in court. You know, follow the law. Instead, Koresh chose to engage in a gun battle. He was at fault for what happened.
This is not an example of government tyranny.
Yes there is.
There is a whole other way of interpreting the Second Amendment (one that was accepted by most up till the mid-20th century).
http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf
Where is it then?Yes there is.
Yep. It's very clear from the historical record that the 2nd Amendment refers to an individual right of the people as a whole, not limited to a subset of people who are in a militia.Have you researched the English common law, studied the linguistic analysis of the Second Amendment, considered the Supreme Court's rulings and legal commentary pre-Heller?
Ruby ridge happened before Waco I believe
Yes, you’re correct. My bad. I’m trying to multitask between this message board and writing payroll checks. I hope I don’t screw up someone’s pay! It seems those two incidents happened one right after the other.
On another note the comment was stated “mistakes were made.” It drives me up the wall when I hear apologists of government overreach absolve the overreach by dismissing it as “mistakes were made.” As if admitting the mistakes makes the overreach OK. Yes, innocent women and children were incinerated, but that’s OK, the government officials just made a mistake. Nothing to see here, move along. Can we absolve Koresh’s actions as mistskes were made? Four law enforcement officers were shot and killed in the initial raid. But just ignore it because mistakes were made. Why do government officials get to make mistakes, but not the rest of us.
Now, back to payroll!
On another note the comment was stated “mistakes were made.” It drives me up the wall when I hear apologists of government overreach absolve the overreach by dismissing it as “mistakes were made.”
That's what I believe, yes. Your perspective is opposite of mine, I get that. No use in arguing about it any longer. In my original comment I specifically said I didn't want to hijack the thread, which was about gun control, and it managed to get hijacked anyway.
Where is it then?
There is zero evidence in historical documents to support that the 2nd Amendment was intended to restrict gun ownership to service in an organized militia. If you think there is some evidence, post it.
That is a prefatory clause, not an operative clause. And it doesn't limit the operative clause. You literally have to ignore the entire historical record to conclude the 2nd Amendment limits gun ownership to people in a militia. But even that view is flawed since the militia is literally defined as everyone, so everyone can own guns.I've already shown it to you. It is the first clause in the amendment.
That is a prefatory clause, not an operative clause. And it doesn't limit the operative clause.
You didn't provide a shred of evidence supporting your position
According to the interpreation you are advocating for. However, there is another valid interpretation that disagrees with this claim and makes a very convincing argument that the controlling clause is the militia clause. And this was the accepted viewpoint for most of our history.
Go read the Supreme Court opinions pre-Heller. Read legal commentary before the mid-20th century. Read historical studies on this issue. Etc.
Yes I did. Plenty of evidence and facts. I am sorry you can't acknowledge it as usual.
Have a good night.
It takes a reasonable, objective, literate person to read the 2nd Amendment and instantly recognize it was inapplicable to the issues we're facing.
Darn those pesky facts contained in the historical record. Party line is how you operate, so it's not difficult to see why you think the way you do. Your lack of ability to grasp the history that formed the basis for the 2nd Amendment is what's concerning.Nothing matters because Medic et al have resolved to believe the party line. That's that.
No, you didn't. Cite one fact from the sources you posted that supports the notion that the 2nd Amendment was intended to limit the right to keep and bear arms to people in a formal militia. Just one.Yes I did. Plenty of evidence and facts. I am sorry you can't acknowledge it as usual.
Already have. There's no smoking gun in it for you. Georgia tried to ban handguns in 1837. Unconstitutional. DC tried the same. Unconstitutional. Those cases couldn't pass the legal test for one class of firearm, let alone all of them. Maybe you can point to a ruling that eliminated the right to keep and bear arms. I'm not aware of a single one.Go read the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals rulings pre-Heller. Read legal commentary before the mid-20th century. Read historical studies on this issue. Etc.
That history is quite clear. Like painfully clear. Those who try to ignore it or attempt to change it are those who are on the losing side of the argument.seriously consider the amendment and the history surrounding it.
Darn those pesky facts contained in the historical record. Party line is how you operate, so it's not difficult to see why you think the way you do. Your lack of ability to grasp the history that formed the basis for the 2nd Amendment is what's concerning.
Why do you own so many guns syskatine?
Those pesky facts again.The historical record is just an excuse to talk about something besides the plain language. I give a shit. I can read the text of the second amendment. It's an anachronism, and that's very clear.
Agreed. Mistakes were made by everyone and the ATF should not have made those mistakes as their main duty is executing those warrants which I doubt included the terms "by any means necessary".
Now back to payroll, you can make out a check to Phil.....
In the mail.Yo Ponca, I'll need three checks: one for me, and one each for my brothers Darrell.
The historical record is just an excuse to talk about something besides the plain language.
Yes, exactly. Lefties can't muster any factual evidence to support their argument so they've resorted to attempts to bastardize language and ignore the historical record to muster an argument. But even that baseless argument falls flat when one realizes that the "militia" refers to everyone but the government.I do understand though how the alternative interpretation has taken root, unfortunately.
3 and 4 are pure speculation. The context of modern weapons applies both directions such that they very well would think that the people's right should be sufficient to be proportional to potential threats. It isn't the right to bear muskets.It takes a reasonable, objective, literate person to read the 2nd Amendment and instantly recognize it was inapplicable to the issues we're facing.
- The first half of the sentence says what it says.
- It's obviously an anachronism. It plainly has something to do with a militia. We had no standing army then. Made sense. The national guard is the closest analog and it's not a real good parallel.
- It's obviously an anachronism. We don't use flintlocks to solve wars. They didn't have .308 and .223 automatic weapons terrorizing the country, either.
- The drafters of that amendment would be the first to say, "Of course that didn't apply. This isn't scripture. Employ reason.
- Nothing matters because Medic et al have resolved to believe the party line. That's that.
3 and 4 are pure speculation. The context of modern weapons applies both directions such that they very well would think that the people's right should be sufficient to be proportional to potential threats. It isn't the right to bear muskets.
That argument is self defeating. If they wanted to create a right for people to have sufficient weapons to repel invaders then the SA should cover planes, bombs, missiles, biological weapons, etc. I haven't heard anybody yet say that.
Read the Stevens dissent in Heller. Even it notes that arms means military weapons.That argument is self defeating. If they wanted to create a right for people to have sufficient weapons to repel invaders then the SA should cover planes, bombs, missiles, biological weapons, etc. I haven't heard anybody yet say that.
I think both are fairly clear and convincing for those who truly consider the issue apart from talking points or trying to prove their own viewpoint. I know my view on the Second Amendment changed the more I considered both.
I do understand though how the alternative interpretation has taken root, unfortunately. But as you alluded to, a plain reading of the amendment by a reasonable person divorced from ideology establishes some common conclusions.
Dehumanizing gun right supporters is a great strategy if you don't want a legitimate debate.
Here is an article to help you guys: http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/06/6-reasons-right-wing-friend-isnt-coming-side-gun-control/