1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Example of upcoming anti-gun diatribe prior to Heller vs. D.C.

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by ky_man, Sep 10, 2007.

  1. ky_man

    ky_man Well-Known Member

    Get ready folks, the antis are becoming more aware of the significance of this case, if SCOTUS decided to pick it up.

  2. General Geoff

    General Geoff Well-Known Member

  3. 30 cal slob

    30 cal slob Well-Known Member

    i wouldn't expect anything less from the '***** at the hartford courant.
  4. K3

    K3 Well-Known Member

    Evidently they are too dense to understand the the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the citizens from the government. Thus limiting RKBA was NOT the founders' intention. It couldn't be. It would contradict the purpose of the BOR if it were. That or they know it but choose to ignore it due to the inconvenience it causes their argument and pet cause.

    They also choose to ignore the Preamble to the Constitution, the thoughts of the framers on getting rid of a tyrannical government, and the means to do so.

    I think the hardcore antis DO know what the founders meant but purposely choose to play word games to suit their purpose. The hardcore antis are not stupid by any stretch.
  5. bulgron

    bulgron Well-Known Member

    I got into a debate online with an anti recently. He was spouting something that I've never heard before, and that I couldn't quite get my head around. Maybe you guys have heard this and can explain it?

    Anyway, his contention was that the idea of the 2A as an individual right is a product of Confederate thinking, and in fact has its roots in the Confederate constitution.

    I think he was seeking for a way to imply that an individual right interpretation is racist, by linking it to the Confederacy.

    Is this a novel argument? Or has this one been kicking around for a while and I've just never heard it before.

    Anyway, all attempts to draw his attention to individual rights statements made by the founders was met with stonewalling and denial of the sort seen by two year olds with their fingers in their ears. But I kept the debate going anyway, for the lurkers who I assumed weren't nearly as hard core and therefore could be swayed by reason.

    It is amazing how far the antis will go to win the argument. Lies, revisionist history, just make crap up, they'll do anything. In fact, this guy implied that if Heller goes the wrong way (for him) it won't matter because the liberals will just pack the court someday down the road and they'll overturn Heller. To this, I asked him if he then thought it would be okay if the current court did the same sort of thing by overturning Roe. The resulting explosion was not, how shall I put this, suitable for polite society....
  6. Rich K

    Rich K Well-Known Member

    How could the U.S. Constitution have it's roots in a document that wouldn't be written for another 80 years?
  7. El Tejon

    El Tejon Well-Known Member

    The Confederate RKBA copied the RKBA in the BoR exactly. "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." http://www.civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm

    This is all they have? Weak tea indeed.

    The Supreme Court has already held that "right of the people" is a term of art that means an individual right.

    The militia clause is a statement of purpose. A well-trained militia flows from individuals having and carrying arms.

    The Supreme Court has held over and over that a statement of purpose does not define or limit a right. Thus, the people, i.e. individuals, have a right to all sorts of guns, not just military guns as the Court held in Miller.
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2007
  8. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Well-Known Member

    I always thought of the 2a as two statements. Something to the effect of: "While we realize a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, we also recognize the right of ALL people to keep and bear arms."

    Considering the colonists (the people) had just won their independance by fighting off a well regulated militia (the Brittish), the notion that they'd want only militias to have arms is absurd.

    Hopefully the SCOTUS will come to the same conclusion. Forcing the antis to plead their case based on fact and not emotion (if that's possible) should be interesting :)
    "Ma'am if you whine "It's for the children" one more time I'll throw you out of my courtroom"
  9. El Tejon

    El Tejon Well-Known Member

    I always think that a decision from the Supreme Court of Georgia is most helpful for people to understand the Second Amendment: In order to have a militia with good gun handling skills which will protect our freedom, we need all y'all to have guns and know how to use them.


    "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 hear
    arms of every description, not merely as are used by the militia,
    shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the
    smallest degree
    ; and all this for the important end to be attained:
    the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally
    necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that
    any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and
    void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our
    forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked
    sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688,
    conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally
    incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!"

    Nunn v. Georgia (1846) (emphasis added).
  10. W.E.G.

    W.E.G. Well-Known Member

    Its all stupid.

    The Second Amendment resides in the Bill of Rights.

    Everything else in the Bill of Rights relates to the rights of the individual person.

    Are we supposed to believe that the authors of the Constitution just barfed some government-army-only thing into the second paragraph of a document that talks all about individual rights?
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2007
  11. W.E.G.

    W.E.G. Well-Known Member

    Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution


    The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of 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;

    Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Amendment II
    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.

    Amendment III
    No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    Amendment IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Amendment V
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Amendment VI
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

    Amendment VII
    In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Amendment VIII
    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Amendment IX
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X
    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.


    Anybody who thinks "people" does not mean people must be really stupid.
  12. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Well-Known Member

    Check the text of the Constitution: nowhere does any government
    entity have a "right": the States, the United States, the President,
    the Congress and the Courts have Powers or Authorities; they do
    not have Rights. The only place Right is mentioned in the Constitution
    is the right of authors to copyrights and inventors to patents.

    That is why the antifederalists insisted on a Bill of Rights to protect
    rights of the people against infringement by the exercise of powers
    and authorities by the government. The exact phrase "right of the
    people" is found in the First, Second and Fourth Amendment
    referring to individual rights in all cases.
  13. bulgron

    bulgron Well-Known Member

    The argument wasn't based on authorship, it was based on interpretation of the words. The fellow was claiming that the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT INTERPRETATION was based entirely upon Confederate philosophies.

    I threw all of the arguments against this guy that others have offered in this thread, and he either ignored them or invented counter arguments or simply refused to believe that what I was saying was true. But, again, I wasn't arguing to convince him, I was arguing to convince the lurkers.

    There's always lurkers.

    I believe I'm going to have to do more of that kind of thing in the future. It doesn't do any good to hang around message boards like this one where everyone agrees with me, and then talk about these issues. No, to make headway, one must wade into the lion's den and argue with the most hostile amongst them. In doing so, so long as you are rational and can make good arguments, you will gradually tease people away from the den and out into the light.
  14. RPCVYemen

    RPCVYemen Well-Known Member

    I have to tell you that I think that this kind of remark is extraordinarily unhelpful.

    1. A person of diminished intellectual capacity is still a human being - a creation of G-d in my opinion. You may or may not agree with that, but I think that most would agree that a person of less than normal intelligence deserves the full respect and dignity of a human being. I hope that you do not believe that the only value of a human lies in cognitive ability. To sum up, a person may be retarded with respect to one or more attributes, but a person is not a retard.
    2. In point of fact, your assertion that the person that wrote that article, or those who present legal arguments against the RKBA are of less than normal cognitive ability is wrong. You statement is not only factually wrong - it is dangerously wrong. If we assume that those against whom we do legal batter are stupid or lazy, then we only harm ourselves. Our opponents may be wrong, many of them are in fact intelligent and well-meaning. Assuming otherwise is ignorant and lazy on our part, and only weakens our hand and strengthens theirs. I'd call that a bad strategy.
    3. I don't know if you noticed that in your rush to name calling you did not rebut the claims made by the author! I guess that - in some way that many of us left in grade school - shouting that someone else is retard is a rebuttal. But it's not what I would call very strong rebuttal. Is calling the someone a retard your idea of a strong rebuttal?

    Not a very good showing for THR. I am a little ashamed of being involved with a forum where calling anyone "a retard" is acceptable behavior.

  15. RPCVYemen

    RPCVYemen Well-Known Member

    When I read the 2nd Amendment in W.E.G's post in the context of the other amendments, it does appear to have the murkiest syntax. If the amendment had been written

    It would be very clear. Usually unduly complicated law is the result of a compromise by committee. Does anyone know the history of this wording - does it reflect some arcane compromise between groups?

    I have heard before if the first phrase is a justification for what follows, then it is the only amendment that attempts to justify itself. For example there is no justification of the right to a jury trial - it is simply stated as a right. Self-justification sounds like committee work again. :)

    It seems like there are a lot of folks on THR that have studied the 2nd Amendment pretty closely. Does anyone know the actual circumstances under which it was composed, i.e. why it has the overly complex syntax?

    If you read all of the Amendments together, the 2nd really sticks out. The others are models of clarity. We might quibble over exactly what is meant by a phrase like

    but the syntax is absolutely unequivocal and clear - and very powerful rhetoric. The 2nd seems like a mish-mash.

  16. bulgron

    bulgron Well-Known Member


    If you really want to know how the 2A got authored, get and watch this documentary:


    But to answer your question, the 2A was authored by studying similar amendments in existing state constitutions of the time, copying them, and then mixing the phrasing around to become what it is today. Why those original state constitutions used the sort of tortured syntax that we see now is not something for which I've ever gotten an explanation.

    I'd tell you which state constitutions were studied in the authorship for the 2A, but I've loaned out my copy of the documentary that I note above. Sorry. I do remember, however, that while only a few state constitutions protected RKBA at the time, more protected RKBA than protected free speech and freedom of religion.

    Also, there was a 3-man committee that actually authored the 2A as we know it now, and we know that one of those people was very much of the opinion that the 2A should only protect a collective right. We also know that his wording was completely rejected by the committee.

    It's pretty clear that right from the very beginning the 2A was highly controversial. There were plenty of people back then who didn't like the idea of extending the right to arms to "the people." On the other hand, those people must have been very much in the minority, because it is equally clear that we wouldn't have a federal government if RKBA hadn't been promised as a part of the bill of rights prior to the federal government's formation.

    I agree that the 2A's syntax is torturous, to say the least. But at the same time, it's clear that the 2A protects two things:

    1. A state's right to raise and maintain a militia
    2. An individual right to keep and bear arms.

    Further, the amendment clarifies that #1 cannot exist without #2, and that #2 is protected because of the need for #1.

    #1 is only one of several reasons to protect #2, but unfortunately the 2A doesn't make that clear. In order to understand that reasons beyond the militia existed to protect #2, one must go back and read what people were saying at the time about arms.

    As a result, we have had a ever-more vicious debate on arms throughout the better part of the last century.

    I suspect that if the founders had any inkling of the philosophies and arguments fomented by communism and socialism, they would have been a LOT clearer when they wrote the 2A.
  17. kungfuhippie

    kungfuhippie Well-Known Member

    That's offensive, I know several mentally retarded adults, and they understand the bill of rights.
    It's one of those things I talked about with Scotty before the last election. Amazing how much more he knew about the candidates than some of my "normal" friends.
    Scotty's favorite comeback is "I may be retarded, but I'm not stupid"
  18. W.E.G.

    W.E.G. Well-Known Member

    OK, I apologize that my derisive remark toward the press offended you.

    You know I wasn't belittling people who are truly mentally handicapped.
  19. RPCVYemen

    RPCVYemen Well-Known Member

    Thanks, I may see if it's in my library.

    Can you tell if the documentary is solid history or propaganda?

    Just from the web page, I have serious questions about the objectivity and or scholarly gravitas of a man writes a book called “Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man.” Al Franken is not a scholar by any stretch of the imagination, he is propagandist for the most liberal elements of the Democratic Party. Mr. Hardy mimicked the title an Al Franken book that struck me as pretty much puerile propaganda. To be fair, I have never read the Al Franken book, but I doubt that anyone contends the book to be either scholarly history or serious political discourse. From the title of David T. Hardy's book, it seems likely to me that Mr. Hardy is more of a propagandist than a historian. Given Mr. Hardy's choice of title, he appears to be claiming to be the Al Franken of the RKBA movement.

    Do you recall the names of the folks on the committee? I had never heard this story before. Was this disagreement a Federalist/Anti-Federalist kind of debate? I know that there was Federalist opposition to the Bill of Rights, I wonder if the debate over the 2nd Amendment was a part of that discussion?


  20. dorvinion

    dorvinion Member

    When I see 'well regulated militia' this is what I see.

    The states have the power to pass laws to provide for the training, arming, discipline, appointment of officers, etc of the militia.

    Laws and state constitutions from the pre-ratification days up to this day reflect this. All able bodied men(persons) from age x to y capable of bearing arms. Equipment lists in the case of some states (certain caliber rifle, certain amount of ammo and powder, for officers, pistols, horses, sabers, etc)

    Lacking leadership and established disciplinary rules, you would essentially be raising an unorganized, loosely trained(if at all) mob, not a militia.

    In other words, 'well regulated' to the founding fathers meant establishing minimums(minimum standard of training, equipment, etc). In todays typically liberal view, 'well regulated' means establishing rigid limitations.

Share This Page