My views on gun ownership

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wasn't asking for a quote. I was explaining that the evidence posted supporting an individual right, by a certain poster, was weak. Rather than using that evidence, I suggested, for future reference, to post quotes from founders or their contemporaries that deal directly with interpretations of the 2A. I suggested 3 examples. I wasn't asking for any.

Boofus, it's late out there in Texas. Maybe your reading comprehension will improve with some sleep. (Sorry for being rude, but this is irritating.)
 
mpd239,

You said,

I just think these are some points you should all think about.

I've read what you've written and find no points that haven't been refuted to my satisfaction.

Here is a point that you should think about.
You have chosen to come here and engage us without being informed in the least. Take heed when you are corrected. To us the consequences of firearm ownership are real instead of theoretical and we consider them more carefully than you can imagine.

Please come back when you have either prepared yourself to back your arguments or are ready to be educated.


David
 
Ieyasu-

What is is that you're having trouble understanding??


Bill of Rights-Militia Act-Current Federal law...spells that out pretty clearly. Even the "Miller" act that gun control proponents point to acknowledges the militia act set up the expectation of posession of military-style firearms and ruled that the sawed-off shotguns did not qualify as such. At no point did they spell out a "collective right", though it did of course acknowledge the 2A was not immune from regulation. This is from that decision;
"The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . [and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

What more do you want?? All three branches maintain the 2A is an INDIVIDUAL right...President Bush/Ashcroft, SCOTUS, and Congress. No one has maintained the 2A is immune from regulation, but it's clearly an individual right. Given the value the Founding Fathers placed on liberty and the ability to resort to armed protest in the face of oppression, only a complete moron would suggest the SECOND AMENDMENT to the BILL OF RIGHTS is a right guaranteed to the government. The most popular stance offered by the collective rights camp equates the National Guard to the militia in the 2A...the NG that was established in the 20th century and whose vehicles bear gov't plates. How could ANY student of history POSSIBLY conclude the 2A is collective?

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them . . . . The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
(Richard Henry Lee)
"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty. . . ."
(Virginia Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 13 (1776))
"I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
(George Mason)
 
Lastly, you argue that many of the justices "would argue" various things. Are you really trying to use speculation as an argument???
 
First of all, the Second Amendment has always been a collective right, and only recently has been interpreted as an individual one-- this is historical fact.

I seriously doubt that I could have any sort of constructive dialogue with this person. The very concept of "collective rights" is as alien to me as whatever may be living on a planet circling around Alpha Centauri.

The very concept of rights being collective; that the rights of a majority somehow supercede the rights of the individual is positively the most asinine concept to come crawling out of the muck of the swamp of post-modernist thinking.

Of course, the idea of the 'collective' civil right is really in vogue right now with those on the supposed cutting edge of philosophy and history. Those who generally tend to espouse this world view lean hard to the left.

Which is ironic. Because if you think collective rights are the way to go, it puts you in tacit approval of the massacre of the Lakota Sioux, the oppression of Irish immigrants, and the forced march of the Cherokee along the Trail of Tears. And that's only in the last couple hundred years of US history. Perhaps we should look at how a 'collective rights' view has helped shape the world.

Let's see, from collective rights we get the Holocaust perpetrated against Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and any other minority group whose rights were obviously not deemed to be part of the National Socialist (Nazi) collective.

We get the pogroms of Pol Pot perpetrated against educated individuals.

And the labor camps, gulags and mass graves of Stalinist Russia as well as much of the oppression that was perpetrated by Mao in China, to say nothing of the heinous stuff going down in North Korea.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that so-called collective rights are no damned civil right at all when it comes right down to the individual. To even think of disputing the concept of an individual's right to life, liberty, and property is anathema to the epistemologies behind the founding of this nation. Assuming that mpd239 is actually working in a politics program at a university it shouldn't be too much of a leap for me to assume that s/he has read Locke, to say nothing of the philosophers that followed in his footsteps; pre-revolutionaries such as James Otis, and modern philosophers such as Ayn Rand, etc.
 
Just to jump on the dog pile here"

mpd239 wrote:
why do you need assault weapons?
I'm an American, need doesn't come into it. The 2nd A says I can have arms. Doesn't say anything about 'The Need of the People...'

it should be legal to own an operational Abrams tank

I believe it is...I think a member here already owns an older model of tank. I even saw a show about a guy in England, of all places, that owns a WWII British tank, with functional weaponry! And, there's plenty of people that own fighter aircraft: Mustangs, Corsairs, B-17s, MiGs of various types...

I will look for a forum that better suits my purposes.

Democratic Underground is just around the corner...


And for my parting shot: You didn't actually read The Federalist Papers, did you?
 
The term "assault weapons" as it is currently used is (puposely) misleading.
"Assault weapon" is merely a catchy term which was conjured up by the gun control lobby to aid in its efforts to demonize these guns.

An assault rifle has a mechanism that allows for fully automatic firing, so that as long as the trigger is squeezed, cartridges will continue to be fired in rapid succession until the supply of ammunition is exhausted. These types of firearms have been heavily regulated since 1934, and are not addressed at all in the legislation banning "assault weapons." This is a very important point, as the average person would have a difficult time distinguishing between side by side photos of a fully automatic assault rifle and a semi-automatic look-alike.

But despite the similar or identical appearances to military firearms, the functionality of "assault weapons" is no different than any other semi-automatic, which have been available for 100 years. And though the label "assault weapons" is relatively new, this type of firearm is not. For example, Colt began making the AR-15 Sporter, a semi-automatic version of the military M16, almost 40 years ago. The venerable M1 Garand, used by our troops in WWII (and, by the way, is significantly more powerful than more modern "assault weapons"), has been available to civilians for even longer. http://www.awbansunset.com/whatis.html

In other words, an "assault weapon" is a "machinegun". The AK-47 and Uzi banned in 1994 were not machineguns, and are functionally identical to other firearms which were not banned under that legislation. The Bushmaster used by the D.C. "sniper" (another misnomer) was not a machinegun. John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo could have accomplished the same murders with any number of other weapons not banned under the 1994 law, including a single shot rifle.

For example, in his book, "Guns: Who Should Have Them?" author David B. Kopel illustrates this point by writing:

Persons who do not know much about guns may be forgiven for thinking that "assault weapons" are machine guns; these people are victims of what has been, in some cases, a quite deliberate fraud. For example, CBS's Chicago affiliate, WBBM-TV, showed a reporter buying a (then legal) semi-automatic Uzi carbine (small rifle); the report later showed an automatic Uzi being fired, and viewers were never informed that the guns had been switched.

and:

People who get most of their knowledge about guns from television may have different impression of the lethality of "assault weapons" as the result of bad reporting on the part of some stations. For example, in early 1989, when 'assault weapons' had just become a major interest of the media, a Los Angeles television station arranged with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for a demonstration of the "awesome power" of "assault weapons." Using a rifle like the one used by Patrick Purdy in the Stockton shootings, an officer shot a watermelon that had been set up on a target stand. The bullet punched a hole the size of a dime in the watermelon, leaving the large fruit otherwise intact. The television reporter complained that the result was "visually unimpressive." The officer obligingly unholstered his service gun (a Beretta pistol, not an "assault weapon"). Loaded in the officer's pistol were high-performance Winchester Silvertip STHP rounds. He fired once, and the watermelon exploded into tiny fragments. By the time the "demonstration" had been edited for broadcast, viewers saw only the officer holding the "assault weapon" and then the exploding watermelon. Viewers were deliberately misled into believing that the "assault weapon" had caused the explosion. http://www.awbansunset.com/history.html

The focus, hype and hyperole on the AK-47 and Uzi are a red herring designed by the anti gun lobby for the purpose of building public sentiment against these firearms on the basis of their appearance only.
 
The academic world considers the 2nd Amendment to always have been interpreted as a collective right; but I won't go into that because it had little bearing on my argument.
Which academic world is this? Are you refering to the academic world of your own teacher and his students or do you include the greater world of NYU plus some of the schools up in Boston and Cambridge?

I won't question any further because it looks like our little droogie has jaunted back to his world from the alternative universe of the rest of the world.
 
sports cars are not designed to kill

but they do, more often than guns.

I personaly know 6 people that have died in MVA's. 0 by gunshot.

check with the CDC for the exact numbers.

as to the AWB

what are the EVIL features that make a AW an AW?
1 folding stock, useless to ban since you can fold the stock and pin in place
2 bayonet lug, when was the last bayonetting on record?
3 flash hider, ever seen a pic of a night live fire they still make a flash, just not near the sight post.
4 pistol grip, if they are bad than why do all handguns have them?
5 gernade launcher, if you can afford the tax stamp ($200) for the launcher and seperate stamp for each projectal more power to you. was more of a scare the uninformed.
edit to add: than one evil feature was allowed and you could pick whatever evil feature you wanted. so if they were that bad why could you have one on a post ban rifle?
 
What is is that you're having trouble understanding??

It's not me, it's you. You continue to fail to address the points I've made. I'll repeat them.

The Militia Act does not by itself, indicate that the 2A was an individual right. It was a STATUTE indicating that those ENROLLED in the militia must bring their own arms when called. So, when the Congress changes (as it did) the Militia law, in the early 19th century, no longer requiring individuals to supply their own arms does that change the scope of the 2A? Of course not, but again, that's why citing the Militia Act when trying to pursuade an anti is a very weak argument.

the militia act set up the expectation of posession of military-style firearms

Again, not pursuasive since it was a law, not a commentary on the 2A. And could easily be interpreted as being meant to having applied soley to those who were ENROLLED in the militia, as the Act itself stated.

You then quote Miller (which you didn't in your original post) but that too is weak. There are several pro-gun constitutional scholars who concede that the Miller decision was ambiguous and could be interpreted either way. I'm not going to waste my time arguing Miller. Again, when trying to pursuade an anti, they won't take your word for it, AND as I stated, there are much stronger/powerful arguments from the Founding period!

No one has maintained the 2A is immune from regulation, but it's clearly an individual right

Again you try to maintain that the Supreme Court holds that the 2A is an individual right and that some regulation is acceptable. I asked you this question before -- Are you conceding that the ugly-gun ban was constitutional and is acceptable regulation and in-line with an indvidual rights interpretation of the 2A?


The most popular stance offered by the collective rights camp equates the National Guard to the militia in the 2A..

No, not anymore. The view now taken by anti's is the "sophisticated individual rights" interpretation. That is, the militia clause restricts the right to active militia members only. See my comments above regarding the Court's interpretation of the copyright clause.

the NG that was established in the 20th century and whose vehicles bear gov't plates.

The NG, when not called into national service IS a part of the well-regulated militia. You seem to be fond of quoting Supreme Court decisions when trying to pursuade somebody of original intent (which I think is a mistake), so along those lines, my claim about the NG is supported by this 1990 Supreme Court decision: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=496&invol=334#t7

Here's how an anti- would respond to your Mason quote (again there are better quotes):

"The context of 'who are the militia?' was the composition of the militia, not the personal rights of militia men. Under the militia system exemptions were generously provided. Men with money could buy themselves out of their obligation or pay a substitute. "
 
My last comment is this is sad. He never provided a single source for any of his grandeous statements, such as:

The academic world considers the 2nd Amendment to always have been interpreted as a collective right; but I won't go into that because it had little bearing on my argument.

Here he uses the classic, use a bogus fact but refuses to discourse further, or support the statement. Again notice he expects we should buy this dribble as gospel, and then he works on building his discourse on a leading falsehood. The whole agruement was smoke and mirrors such as:


I'm a Politics student at one of the top programs in the country; I have read plenty. I simply pointed out a widely accepted interpretation of the Second Amendment (widely accepted amongst scholars, no less);

Again, which college? widely accepted by whom? And he reads plenty, what Micheal Bellesiles, or Mad magazine?

The sad part he didn't come here to learn anything at all. niether was he willing to do any homework on his part to support his views. I certainly hope he develops his critical thinking skills during the remainder of his work at that top college. Something in my head says Columbia, but it is purely speculation on my part.

My comment to the parents in the audience is this is a product of what you pay $20,000 a year when you educate your children. Isn't a Poltical science degree about learning researching skills and develping critical thinking skills to make a coherent agruement? I failed to observe any of that in this thread......SAD
 
man, you guys bashed him unneccessarily hard.

i used to be another gun-fearer living in NYC.

i saw the light because my uncle showed me the truth, not bashed me over the head with it :)
 
Just my first two cents on this forum:

Here are some references that might be useful next time somone comes up with the "most scholars agree that the second amendment is a collective right" agrument:

Reynolds, Glenn H., A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment, 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461-512 (1995).

This is available at http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html.

One of the most important points in Prof. Reynolds argument is also one of the simplest. If the RKBA is a collective, and not an individual right, the Miller decision would have been radically different. It would have resulted in a dismissal for lack of standing, rather than a remand to a lower court for additional findings of fact concerning the weapon.

U.S. v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001) 270 F.3d 203

This is available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331.cr0.wpd.pdf.

If this does not work, go to the fifth circuit's main opinion page and search for "emerson."

"The shot heard 'round the world" for a renewed understanding of the second amendment in context. The opinion, and its existence, speaks for itself. As a side note, I'm surprised no one has attacked 18 U.S.C. 922(o) in the fifth circuit. When looking at an infringment on an individual right, the government must justify the law by 1) showing a "compelling state interest" and 2) that it has used the "least restrictive means." 922(o), I would contend, fails on both these counts. How many machine guns have been used in crime? Very few. Is there a less restrictive means to keep them out of the hands of criminals? The strict controls imposed in 1934 were more than sufficient.

Additionally, the Nordyke cases out of the ninth circuit (yes, the ninth!) show a very vocal minority of judges strongly support the individual rights view of the second amendment.

Whew. At my hourly rate, I think that was catually more like $75.00 than two cents.
 
sekdar - "i saw the light because my uncle showed me the truth, not bashed me over the head with it."

The big, big difference in your case and the case at hand here is that you listened! Obviously I don't know you or your uncle, but I'd be willing to bet good money that if you hadn't listened and understood, the head bashing would have started at some point. :) :D
 
One of the most important points in Prof. Reynolds argument is also one of the simplest. If the RKBA is a collective, and not an individual right, the Miller decision would have been radically different. It would have resulted in a dismissal for lack of standing, rather than a remand to a lower court for additional findings of fact concerning the weapon.
This is 100% wrong. The case was not remanded for additional findings.

Do you really think the Supreme Court shirked its responsibility, threw its hands up in the air and said, “Oh, we can’t figure this out...so YOU figure it out!†To think as such is to truly choose to be ignorant of our judicial process. I will say it again, probably not for the last time...

THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT SEND CASES BACK TO LOWER COURTS FOR DECISIONS THAT IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR!!

The court ruled on the status of the weapon...its possess was not covered by the Second Amendment, and that's that. There was nothing else left to determine.
 
I've read the US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, most Federalist papers, and numerous modern writings on the formation of the American state. I'm a Politics student at one of the top programs in the country; I have read plenty.

It is accurate to say that the RKBA is a collective right based only upon actual Court rulings as recently as Silveira in 2002. Neither the collective right nor individual right view is firmly established in technical, real terms. So everyone is wrong to some extent.

Most of the court rulings relate and may continue to relate to keeping guns out of the hands of blacks or believing that the plain enough language in the Bill of Rights somehow needs to be justified, ignoring its ultimate meaning. On more than one occasion the Courts have rationalized or ruled in a ridiculous manner, ignoring plain enough English, only to suit their purpose of maintaining the status quo for the upper class. We know those rulings to be bogus and have ample evidence to back that up. In our arguments, we essentially ignore bad laws and bad rulings in stating our version of the truth. The technical invalidity of those laws and rulings is well documented and quite credibly and objectively. Getting all that fixed has a lot to do with why we are here.

It was a mistake to bring academic arrogance to the party and underestimate who you were dealing with. Unsubstantiated dogmatism is just not going to fly. I am sorry that some may have responded poorly, but you will need to back off and hang out for awhile. Trust me, your initial opinions will change substantially after being exposed to the collective knowledge here and considering it objectively.

The problem seen with anti-gun arguments so frequently is that they are not factual, are outright lies, are out of context, are highly subjective, are founded in biased propaganda and then sincere, or are based in emotion.

Please do not use Court rulings as an academic resource without also knowing the background and aftermath and whether the ruling has any reason to be respected. Unfortunately you will find that the Court system is highly overrated by some and completely disrespected by others. They have their moments, thankfully, but there are some serious integrity problems in the US legal system.
 
Collective right?!

Don't let those teachers spout off lies to you. Read the second amendment again. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Just because they talk about the militia first, does not make it a collective right. My teacher in high school told me the same lie, and all that resulted in was an hour longer argument.

Can't use an AK for hunting? That was the most ignorant statement made. You obviously have very limited knowledge of firearms.

A more proper argument would be against normal capacity magazines. A question of "Why do you need 75 rounds?" would be much better statement than saying AK's are designed for warfare. Well, then all guns should just have 1 round. It shouldn't take you more than 1 shot to drop a deer, nor more than 1 shot to stop an intruder, right?

If AK's sole purpose is to kill people, then the same can go for 99% of the handguns being sold. How many people use their 1911, SIG, Glock, etc for hunting? Not many, but i'm sure some do. You also seem to believe that it was impossible to get AK style weapons until recently, here your ignorance shines through.

If you want to stop the selling of your so called "assault weapons" for the sole purpose of preventing crime, then we should stop selling cameras and video recorders for the sole purpose of preventing the creation of child pornography. Is there any logic behind that statement? People both use these for legitmate reasons only the few use them in crime.

Just to let you know, my deer rifle is a remington 700 but it seems a fairly popular weapon for local PD snipers. Should that be taken away from me because it's designed to kill people?

Here is my sporter rifle and all the accessories I bought for it.
Look, even my documents say this is a weapon intended for SPORT and PROFESSIONAL HUNTING.

saiga2.jpg

saiga.jpg


Oh yeah, with the folding stock I installed after the AWB ended does it make my gun any more dangerous?

ak1.jpg

ak2.jpg


And for the rest of you, yes it has the 10 US parts, so I guess it isn't a Russian gun anymore :)
 
i saw the light because my uncle showed me the truth, not bashed me over the head with it
To reiterate what Mal said, it seems self-evident that you originally approached the subject with a relatively active mind.

It's obvious from the getgo that mpd wasn't here to engage in rational discussion. S/He was here to show all of us gun-totin', knuckle-draggin' inbred hilljacks the enlightenment of his ways. If he had any interest in rational discussion he would never have started off posting stuff like this:

I find that insulated issue-oriented internet communities often diverge from mainstream viewpoints, and don't become aware of their radicalism or the illogical nature of some of their views.
S/he never once considered the concept that maybe as an "insulated issue-oriented internet community" that perhaps our depth of knowledge about the legal, mechanical, and social implications of firearms would lead us to draw conclusions different from say, a soccer mom in Secaucus whose only exposure to firearms has been via the mass media.

What's more, mpd came in and made baseless claims that the RKBA has always been a collective right. It's common knowledge that in any given inquiry the burden of proof lies with the person who makes a claim. Mpd came to our website, made a lavish claim, and then offered absolutely no proof to back up said claim.

But what do I know? I don't go to NYU. I just went to college at Purdue where we're all a bunch of hayseeds who sit around in the middle of an Indiana cornfield.

:rolleyes:
 
Logically, why do you need an AK-47? Justifying it in relation to a Porsche is ridiculous; sports cars are not designed to kill.

You are missing the point. It does not matter what things are designed to do, what matters is what you do with them. There are 13,000 members on this board and 40-80 million gun owners in the US. Self-defense reasons aside, an average gun owner is a law-abiding person who simply likes collecting guns and enjoys target shooting. Just because I like the way AK-47 sounds does not make me a baby-killer. Otherwise, you would have average gun owners committing murders left and right, and believe me, if this was true, media would have kept us well informed. As to your point that you would feel better if a radical Muslim extremist could not walk into a store and buy an "assault weapon", consider that you have to pass an FBI and local background check before you can purchase a gun from a gun shop. So if a radical extremist is legally ok to own a gun, yes, he will be able to purchase one. As to his intent to go into a mall and shoot a bunch of people, we cannot legislate intent.

I recommend that you get together with some who owns an "assault weapon" and go shooting. See for yourself what the hype is all about. The reason people get so upset at arguments such as yours is just because you don't see a need for something, does not mean that you should prohibit other people from owning the object in question. I could argue that no one needs a private jet, and you will probably say, "But planes are not designed to kill people". Victims of 9/11 beg to differ. Should we take away all the private planes now in fear that they might be used to fly into our houses? I repeat, it does not matter what an object is designed to do but how you use it.

Julie

P.S. It does not matter if some of us think that this person is trying to start something, insulting his intelligence will not help bringing people like him around. A lot of us were ignorant about guns and gun politics at one point or another, but if other gun owners gave up on us because we were liberals, Democrats, new-yorkers, etc, our cause would suffer greatly.
 
One more thing. You have to ask your self - who are they trying to prevent from getting guns when AWB and similar legislation gets passed. There are several possibilities, and if you think about any of them, you will see how any legislation would fail in accomplishing such a task. Instead of banning an object (a gun), look further to see what the desired objective is in the long run.

Group 1 - criminals and/or terrorists can get such guns. This is where most political outcry seems to concentrate. Now think about it - when someone is ok with committing murder, which is already illegal, would they stop and think, jeez, this gun is illegal, I should really get me a Glock or a Remington 700.

Group 2 - law-abiding citizen having a bad day and shooting people over road rage or killing their family. A knife, a baseball bat, a chainsaw would do just as handy.

Group 3 - kids having easy access to parents' guns and shooting themselves. Bad parenting is just that - how many kids drown in pools or get electricuted because of bad parenting? Gun locks will not help if a parent is careless and does not lock the gun.

Note that in all of the examples a person is just as dangerous with a handgun as they as with an "assault weapon". By the way, if you mean a weapon of assault, number one murder weapon in the country is a screwdriver.

Murder is already illegal, why not punish murderers and not "assault weapon owners"?
 
By the way, if you mean a weapon of assault, number one murder weapon in the country is a screwdriver.

Unless you're trying to play some weird semantics game, where the heck do you people come-up with this crap? Err excuse me, this is supposed to be the highroad... cite please. (The FBI UCR reports that firearms are the #1 murder weapon.)
 
This is 100% wrong. The case was not remanded for additional findings.

I agree that the entire thrust of the Miller decision regarded whether the firearm in question was within the scope of those arms that an individual was entitled to keep and bear under the second amendment. That is the point. The court could not say whether the shotgun in question was or was not such a weapon. The Court said:

"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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158." 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939)

The holding of the Court is equally clear:

"We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings." id. at 183

The Supreme Court can remand a case back to a lower court for additional proceedings when it is excercising appellate jurisdiction. In this instance, the Court was requesting additional findings of facts concerning the weapon.

It is also important to note how this action was determined in the lower court. This was a direct appeal from a court that had sustained the demurr of the defendants and quashed the indictment. A demurr, prior to the enactment of the Rules of Civil Proceedure, was the equivilent of a motion to dismiss. By reversing the lower court's ruling, the Supreme Court did nothing more than say that it was "Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." id at 178. In other words, the lower court wa premature in its ruling.

Anyone may, of course, disagree with my analysis. Certainly State and Federal courts have choosen to read more into this case than, I would contend, is warranted by the decision's clear language.

However, the original point remains: The Supreme Court did not dismiss Mr. Miller's individual second amendment claim for lack of standing, as so many lower courts have done in reliance of Miller.
 
Anyone may, of course, disagree with my analysis. Certainly State and Federal courts have choosen to read more into this case than, I would contend, is warranted by the decision's clear language.

Which is why it's completely asinine to bring Miller into the discussion as it relates to the thread starter's contention regarding the 2A. (I'm not saying you did.)

It's much better to cite relevant passages contemporaneous to the 2A rather than ambiguous court decisions which subsequently have NOT been used to uphold gun rights. I simply refer to the majority of lower court decisions holding that the 2A is not a broad individual right. These decisions have NOT been overturned by the Supremes.

As Realgun pointed out, but stated differently, mentioning these cases is like a self-inflicted head-shot, or at best a body shot.
 
Which is why it's completely asinine to bring Miller into the discussion as it relates to the thread starter's contention regarding the 2A. (I'm not saying you did.)

Actually, I did bring Miller into the discussion, if only to illustrate a point by Prof. Reynolds. I also agree that the sheer weight of case law out there, most of it binding, argues against the individual right stance. However, I do not agree that the proper response is to allow the advocates of a collective right stance to go uncahallenged in this arena.

Miller says no more and no less than I stated above. In sustaining the demurr, which was not supported by any factual evidence, the Arkansas court took judicial notice that the weapon was within the category of those weapons protected by the second amendment. The Supreme Court simply said the lower court could not do this. Nothing else.

Miller is the foundation upon which the collective rights argument is based. Take that decision away from the advocates of that theory, in the media and the courts, and their house of cards crumbles. There is an old saying in the law: When the facts are against you, argue the law, when the law is against you, argue the facts.

Do not concede that the Supreme Court has ruled on this subject. It has not. Point out that supporters of segregation could have pointed to a long line of Supreme Court cases prior to Brown v. Board of Education to support their position of racial inequality. The collectivists do not even have that much support in the law.

Additionally, I would agree with another point that you have made. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was not granted by any court, including the Supreme Court. It is guaranteed under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States. True lovers of liberty know that the laws infringing upon that right today are no more constitutional than the laws creating segregation were prior to Brown.

Finally, who has been the voice of the second amendment in the courts? With startling regularity it has been the street criminal raising the challenge, not the stalwart citizen aserting his rights. Most of the cases are indictments incident to an arrest on other charges, including assaults and drug trafficing. Perhaps this is the reason why the Supreme Court has been unwilling to accept the challenge: the courts below reached the right conclusion for the wrong reason, and the Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions.

Again, just my two cents.
 
"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the 2nd amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as it's interpretation by every major commentator and court in the 1st half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."~~Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session, 2/82



as too wether the 2A is a personal or collective right


pretty clear to me

jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top