Second Amendment, Militia, (comma) vs Militia

[OMDP]

HO88

lol, OMDP you keep arguing a stance which you have no base. Who is going to decide what arm is "legal"? If people like the Brady bunch had there way nothing but a single shot musket would be legal. Is that acceptable?QUOTE]


WHo is going to decide what arms are legal and not? The govt. Is it acceptable to ban all weapons but a single shot musket? Of course not. I am clarifying my point. The point is the militia is protected through individuals having arms.
The govt can ban certain weapons, however they cannot ban weapons to distort the market so that individuals cannot get weapons which are considered useful for the militia.
Ie, the militia needs modern weapons, and the militia needs a healthy supply, the govt cannot do anything which prevents this.

Anyone find it funny that OMDP is from the UK but arguing a talking point which effects Americans?

Here we go again. This is not an original "argument" in any way. My nationality does not affect my arguments, so just leave it out.

He really has no ground to tell Americans what the US constitution "should be".

And for the last time, it clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Hmm, freedom of speech's main purpose was designed so people could talk about such things. So in fact i have PLENTY of ground to give my opinion on any topic i choose.

It clearly states somethings which in the context you have put it means something different.

Keep means own, bear means to be in the militia.
The 2A does not and has never said, clearly or otherwise, that all arms are protected. In fact it has never protected the right of firearms to exist, to be owned or to be bourne in any manner.

IE no banning of guns to citizens.

What is says is that the people shall not be prevented from being able to keep and bear arms by the federal govt. By banning sawn off shotguns, citizens can still keep and bear arms.

 

[OMDP]

Ranger335v

Only lunatics could conceive of the argument that some of them promote, that the founders only meant to guarantee for itself the privilige of arming it's armed forces and not to insure the government respect the right of an individual citizen to provide for his own defense. But, they propose we assume the fonders injected the Second as a government right for protecting itself in a list of amendments otherwise specified for individuals.

Actually the founders used the 2A to protect the militia. The way they did this was by protecting individuals.
It is not about personal defence of an individual. An individual can use their weapons to defend themselves, but this is not protected by the 2A.

 

[H088]

WHo is going to decide what arms are legal and not? The govt. Is it acceptable to ban all weapons but a single shot musket? Of course not. I am clarifying my point. The point is the militia is protected through individuals having arms.
The govt can ban certain weapons, however they cannot ban weapons to distort the market so that individuals cannot get weapons which are considered useful for the militia.
Ie, the militia needs modern weapons, and the militia needs a healthy supply, the govt cannot do anything which prevents this.

Comes back to what I said before, all guns are useful to the militia. The goverment has done plenty to try to prevent this, they have just failed miserably. If you allow bans on certain fire-arms those bans usually attempt to grow.

I would say a SMG or burst fire rifle is allot more useful then a pump shotgun for the militia, I would tend to think most people would agree.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It clearly states people, as in the individual.

 

[gc70]

The 2A does not and has never said, clearly or otherwise, that all arms are protected.

The Second Amendment does not say "all arms" nor does it say "only some arms" so a conclusion about the meaning of "arms" is simply an opinion reflecting one of many possible interpretations.

It is not about personal defence of an individual. An individual can use their weapons to defend themselves, but this is not protected by the 2A.

It will be interesting to see whether your opinion prevails against the contrary opinions of two Supreme Court Justices who will be deciding the meaning of the Second Amendment in the Heller case.

From oral arguments in Heller:

Justice Kennedy: And so in effect the amendment says we reaffirm the right to have a militia, we've established it, but in addition, there is a right to bear arms.

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how there's any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: And in my view it (the Second Amendment) supplemented it (the militia clauses of the Constitution) by saying there's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way.

 

[gc70]

My nationality does not affect my arguments, so just leave it out.

Your nationality does not inherently affect your arguments. However, you should recognize that Americans may well be suspicious of a British subject advocating restrictive interpretations of the Second Amendment. The abysmal state of firearms rights in the UK may or may not actually affect your opinions about the scope of the Second Amendment, but it is not totally unreasonable to question whether your environment might bias your viewpoint.

 

[ARMY-JOHN]

Why is soooooooooooooo hard to defer an individual right granted by our founding fathers vs attempting collective rights that the Liberal Left wants us to have. The 2nd Amendment was written as all of our rights as individual rights:

Right of free speech
Right to assemble
Right to keep and bear arms
Right against illigal search and searure
Right to legal counsel

INDIVIDUAL

You commit a crime it isint a collective right to legal counsel it is an individual right.

 

[Gunsby_Blazen]

Good argument Army-John, its all context....

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

If he can check to see whether the laws are being carried out or not, but not act on this, then what would the point be?

He can press charges against the violators. He can, as stated, ask Congress to activate the militia if he needs it.

What happens when state law enforcement bodies cannot provide for the safety of the USA as a whole? Is it the job of the militia to do this?

It's covered in the Constitution. For the United States as a whole, we have both the regular armed forces and the militia. It isn't up to the several states to guard the United States as a whole.

(Though i do not doubt it would be quite easy to move the FBI over to the militia and have it permanently in the power of the president).

As stated, the FBI is fine where it's at; it just should not be enforcing the law. I don't see how it could be moved to the militia, but, for clarity, please specify what the President would have permanent control over - the FBI or the militia? Your syntax is not clear.

Surely being arrested by the FBI could be considered reasonable grounds to claim the arrest was illegal. But no one has done this.

That's right as far as I know if what you mean by, "no one has done this", is to challenge an arrest by the FBI. The same would hold true for any other alphabet agency.

No it doesn't. You can still keep and bear arms if one gun is banned.

One more time: The Second Amendment forbids government to infringe the right. It isn't about me still being able to keep and bear some arms when some others may be banned, but about the fact that government is forbidden to infringe the right and no arms should be banned from my access because I have the right to keep and bear whatever arms I see fit that I can afford, feel comfortable with, desire, have a need for, want to collect, practice with, fondle, admire, or anything I can possibly do with them that isn't unlawful; any or all of the foregoing. That means government cannot interfere with my keeping and bearing of arms. Can't touch it. No. Nada. Nothing. Hands off. Don't touch. You may, of course, continue to say the Second Amendment is about me keeping and bearing arms even though it's about banning government from infringing the right. You have as much right to be wrong with your opinions as I have the right to espouse the truth.

As for the rest of your pontifications, I'll just say I'm glad you are not a judge or Justice.

The 2A does not and has never said, clearly or otherwise, that all arms are protected. In fact it has never protected the right of firearms to exist, to be owned or to be bourne in any manner.

Firearms don't have rights. People have rights. We have the right to keep and bear firearms(a subset of "arms").

Does justice have a right to exist? How about revenge? Doesn't matter. They do exist. Same for arms. They exist. Governments exist as well, but governments don't have rights either. The people have the rights. The people either grant or allow governments to have power(s) derived from those rights but surrender none of the rights or the powers thus derived - they are shared. Any government claiming rights of the people, or denying people their rights will not long endure, nor has any government so inclined in the past long endured. A government in usurpation of the rights of the people - the right of the people to their arms in particular - is not long for this world. Even a totally disarmed people will rise up when the level of despotism becomes worse than dying. People will die to be free. In any case whatsoever, all the people will die and the despotic government will die from a lack of villein to exploit, or the despotic government will be overthrown and the people will prevail.

All it takes is for a people to choose freedom. We've done that in this country with our Constitution. Dissemble, interpolate, and/or engage in malapropism on any part - or all of it - if you wish , but you'll never vitiate it. We know better. Don't you wish you had a constitution like ours?

Huh. All this from the natural progression of a question on the meaning - even the efficacy - of a comma in a given text.

At any rate, we won the revolution; you lost. I think we'll keep our arms - all of them - close to our bosom just in case we might need them again. Who knows! Uncle Sam may get too big for his britches some day, and I'd like whatever generation that is around to have a fighting chance over and above suffocating him with dead bodies. Arms are much more efficient.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood

 

[Aguila Blanca]

(Though i do not doubt it would be quite easy to move the FBI over to the militia and have it permanently in the power of the president).

As stated, the FBI is fine where it's at; it just should not be enforcing the law. I don't see how it could be moved to the militia, but, for clarity, please specify what the President would have permanent control over - the FBI or the militia? Your syntax is not clear.

OMDP, it is impossible to move the FBI anywhere in order to "have it permanently in the power of the president." The White House is the top of the executive branch of the government. The Department of Justice, to which the FBI belongs, is an agency within the executive branch.

Which means that the FBI is already, and always has been since its inception, permanently under the control of the President.

 

[OMDP]

H088

Comes back to what I said before, all guns are useful to the militia. The goverment has done plenty to try to prevent this, they have just failed miserably. If you allow bans on certain fire-arms those bans usually attempt to grow.

But then the balance between the security of a legitimate govt but giving the people the option of taking down bad govt comes into play here.

I would say a SMG or burst fire rifle is allot more useful then a pump shotgun for the militia, I would tend to think most people would agree.

Yes quite possibly. The point here is that the american people must decide which guns are useful/necessary for the militia.
However i don't think this is the main question at this point in time, this is whether the militia actually needs to be more active from the point of view of the unorganised militia.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It clearly states people, as in the individual.

It is individual, however it is individual in the same manner that jury service is individual.

 

[OMDP]

gc70

The Second Amendment does not say "all arms" nor does it say "only some arms" so a conclusion about the meaning of "arms" is simply an opinion reflecting one of many possible interpretations.

The differences in opinion come from differing views. My view of the 2A is that it was put into the constitution in order to protect the militia. By protecting individuals you can protect the militia.
Now, nobody is saying that criminals losing protections of the RKBA after due process is bad. Nobody is saying the insane losing their protections is bad. Surely a gun owned by a criminal could be used just as much as a gun owned by anyone else, surely a gun in the hand of a person convicted by a govt who the people are fighting against is just as much, possibly more, useful than as a person who was not convicted.
The limitations are there, "shall not be infringed" does not mean the govt cannot infringe on the rights of all individuals.

From the same point, guns are not protected. If an individual has a choice between 50 types of guns but 20 types are banned, can they keep arms that the militia needs to be effective? Can they bear arms that will be borne effectively?

It will be interesting to see whether your opinion prevails against the contrary opinions of two Supreme Court Justices who will be deciding the meaning of the Second Amendment in the Heller case.

it will be very interesting. It will also be interesting to see what the losing "side" does afterwards. I am hoping that the Supreme Court does not make a biased decision like lower courts have made in the past, both left and right.

 

[OMDP]

ConstitutionCowboy

Originally Posted by OMDP
What happens when state law enforcement bodies cannot provide for the safety of the USA as a whole? Is it the job of the militia to do this?

It's covered in the Constitution. For the United States as a whole, we have both the regular armed forces and the militia. It isn't up to the several states to guard the United States as a whole.

I mean to say not from a military point of view but from a policing point of view. A person commits a federal crime, are you waiting for the state police to arrest someone for something that is possibly not against their state law but that of the USA? What happens when someone goes into another state?

As stated, the FBI is fine where it's at; it just should not be enforcing the law. I don't see how it could be moved to the militia, but, for clarity, please specify what the President would have permanent control over - the FBI or the militia? Your syntax is not clear.

It doesn't really matter, i meant the FBI within the militia.

That's right as far as I know if what you mean by, "no one has done this", is to challenge an arrest by the FBI. The same would hold true for any other alphabet agency.

The question is why? If this is unconstitutional as you have said, then surely someone would have done it in the FBI's history.

One more time: The Second Amendment forbids government to infringe the right. It isn't about me still being able to keep and bear some arms when some others may be banned, but about the fact that government is forbidden to infringe the right and no arms should be banned from my access because I have the right to keep and bear whatever arms I see fit that I can afford, feel comfortable with, desire, have a need for, want to collect, practice with, fondle, admire, or anything I can possibly do with them that isn't unlawful;

I didn't have a problem up until you got to the word "unlawful". Surely a nuclear weapon kept in an apartment building in manhatten is going to go against the rights of millions of people, unless of course the govt can be sure that it is being stored correctly. For the govt to be sure of that they would have to register it, for it to be registered it would then go against what a constitutionally protected right is all about.
You are in a catch 22 situation. There comes a point where you have to decide which rights are more important, that of the owner or those of the people around.

That means government cannot interfere with my keeping and bearing of arms.

This is the point i am making to a certain extent. The govt can ban arms as long as they don't interfere with your RKBA.
However as i have just said, there are cases where you may be violating other people's rights in doing so.

Can't touch it. No. Nada. Nothing. Hands off. Don't touch.

Well, they can't touch the weapons you have, unless they are illegal. However if you don't own the weapons, that is something quite different.

You may, of course, continue to say the Second Amendment is about me keeping and bearing arms even though it's about banning government from infringing the right.

I know how it works. When i write what i write i do take this into account. Sometimes it is just easier to write it a different way.

Firearms don't have rights. People have rights. We have the right to keep and bear firearms(a subset of "arms").

Yes, but again, you do not have the right to keep and bear all the arms that exist. As long as you can keep and bear arms then there is no problem.

All it takes is for a people to choose freedom. We've done that in this country with our Constitution. Dissemble, interpolate, and/or engage in malapropism on any part - or all of it - if you wish , but you'll never vitiate it. We know better. Don't you wish you had a constitution like ours?

The thing is here what the people choose. The people choose to have a democratic govt, they choose that this govt should act on their behalf, protect them and things like this.
Do the people choose to have the ability of renegade groups to take over this govt? No, i don't believe they do.
The reason the bear arms was introduced along with "A well regulated militia" was so that the militia is the only legitimate body that can take over govt, that this must have state appointed officers, rather than anyone, these are safeguards.
Now, if all arms are available to all individuals then this security will break down. Is this what the people want? Is this what the people accepted when they constitution was adopted? I don't think so.

At any rate, we won the revolution; you lost. I think we'll keep our arms - all of them - close to our bosom just in case we might need them again. Who knows! Uncle Sam may get too big for his britches some day, and I'd like whatever generation that is around to have a fighting chance over and above suffocating him with dead bodies. Arms are much more efficient.

Yes, they are more efficient for defence and attack. I am not saying get rid of all the weapons, i am saying that the 2A is not an all powerful amendment, it has its limitations.

 

[mr.72]

The thing is here what the people choose. The people choose to have a democratic govt,

No they didn't. They chose to have a Representative Republic.

There is a difference.

they choose that this govt should act on their behalf, protect them and things like this.

No, they didn't. They chose that the government should protect the country from another nation.

Do the people choose to have the ability of renegade groups to take over this govt? No, i don't believe they do.

Well, of the people are unarmed, then they do not have a choice, do they?

How do "renegade groups" take over the government, unless they are the only ones who are armed and able to mount an offensive?

The reason the bear arms was introduced along with "A well regulated militia"

You are totally misreading that.

The right for the people to keep and bear arms is in spite of or in addition to the need for a a well-regulated militia.

was so that the militia is the only legitimate body that can take over govt, that this must have state appointed officers, rather than anyone, these are safeguards.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the 2A or the whole founding doctrine of the United States of America.

Now, if all arms are available to all individuals then this security will break down. Is this what the people want? Is this what the people accepted when they constitution was adopted? I don't think so.

This is a fallacious argument. Security will only break down if only certain groups of people or people are armed. But if all people are armed then they are all on equal footing.

What works on the macro level (societal) works on the micro level (personal). You can overthrow my security in my house if you come in armed, and I am not armed. However if I am armed, then you have far less chance of a successful assault on my freedom. The same is true for groups or for society. If only one particular political fringe group is armed, then that political fringe group can exert force upon the rest of society that is not proportionate to their representation in society. But if all people are armed then those in the political fringe group do not have any advantage of force over the rest of the people.

For example, we hear of the influence of Mexican drug traffickers. Now, we cannot carry any guns to Mexico, and the Mexican law-abiding citizens cannot arm themselves either. So this means the criminal drug traffickers only have to be able to overwhelm the police, and then they can assume authority by means of force. However if they come to Texas and try and do the same thing, they may find that the people, who are rightfully armed, are a far greater foe than the police and they no longer can have a disparity of force in their favor.

Security only breaks down when there is inequality in access to arms.

 

[Art Eatman]

The Second Amendment says nothing about hunting or self defense. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. The Preamble to the Bill Of Rights states that the purpose of the package of the first ten amendments is to, "...prevent the abuse of power by the State."

The BOR serves as a restriction upon the central government, the "Feds". It is totally irrational to believe that people who foresaw a need to restrain the central government from abusing its power would at the same time intend that restraint to apply to individual citizens.

Now, if folks wanna argify over just how much abuse is needed before armed resistance is necessary, fine; take it to APS. Not here. That's polyticks, not law.

Anyhow, read the danged Preamble--and think. For that matter, read the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers and come back here afterwards.

 

[Gunsby_Blazen]

Good one Art, its all about context.....
I have been saying it all along....
The Bill of Rights is all about protecting freedom and establishing boundaries where the Fed should not encroach.
I started this just for the philosophy of law, not to advocate any actions and get people on those type of rants.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I mean to say not from a military point of view but from a policing point of view. A person commits a federal crime, are you waiting for the state police to arrest someone for something that is possibly not against their state law but that of the USA? What happens when someone goes into another state?

First off, with the government of the Union shrunk back down to within the bounds of the Constitution, about 99% of all federal crimes will disappear. The several states will be able to handle the rest. What little federal crimes remaining on the books will easily be handled by the federal courts and the US Marshals. If a US Marshal is unable to serve a warrant, or the criminal refuses to show up in court, Congress can provide for calling fourth the militia to bag the guy. That's how it's supposed to work.

That's right as far as I know if what you mean by, "no one has done this", is to challenge an arrest by the FBI. The same would hold true for any other alphabet agency.

The question is why? If this is unconstitutional as you have said, then surely someone would have done it in the FBI's history.

I don't have an answer for you beyond speculation that those so arrested are clueless. But, that doesn't change the facts. If someone from the FBI, BATFE, CIA, DHS, or any other such agency arrested me, I'd challenge it.

One more time: The Second Amendment forbids government to infringe the right. It isn't about me still being able to keep and bear some arms when some others may be banned, but about the fact that government is forbidden to infringe the right and no arms should be banned from my access because I have the right to keep and bear whatever arms I see fit that I can afford, feel comfortable with, desire, have a need for, want to collect, practice with, fondle, admire, or anything I can possibly do with them that isn't unlawful; ...

I didn't have a problem up until you got to the word "unlawful". Surely a nuclear weapon kept in an apartment building in Manhattan is going to go against the rights of millions of people, unless of course the govt can be sure that it is being stored correctly. For the govt to be sure of that they would have to register it, for it to be registered it would then go against what a constitutionally protected right is all about.

You are in a catch 22 situation. There comes a point where you have to decide which rights are more important, that of the owner or those of the people around.

If you'll get off the kick that the Second Amendment is about what rights I have - which it's not - and on to the fact that the Second Amendment prohibits government to infringe the right, it'll go a lot smoother. ONLY government is prohibited to infringe the RKBA. You can disallow me to carry arms in your house. That said, keeping a nuke in an apartment building in Manhattan is benign and innocuous. Detonating such a devise there would certainly cause a problem, so, law can be written forbidding me to detonate such a devise in an apartment building in Manhattan. That would constitute "use" and use is not protected by the Second Amendment(or anything else in the Constitution that I'm aware of.

If the nuclear material in my device traveled in interstate commerce, federal law could be written on how that material is to be stored for shipping or holding. If the nuclear material in my devise did not travel in interstate commerce, state law could be written with guidelines as to how such material shall be stored and transported intrastate. Registration would not be necessary or constitutional. If the material is weaponized, the Second Amendment would prohibit registration. If I'm handling it improperly, get a warrant, arrest me, seize my material and try me. Otherwise, bugger off!

Fear not, though OMDP. There is nothing to prevent government from regulating or cornering the market on fissile materials before those materials become weaponized in the hands of the hoi polloi.

Most of the rest has been well covered by others here.

I'll close with the following:

I am not saying get rid of all the weapons, i am saying that the 2A is not an all powerful amendment, it has its limitations.

Yes, it does have one limitation, but not here in the United States. It doesn't cover your right to keep and bear arms in the country where you live. You still have the right, it's just not protected like it should be over there.

Woody

 

[OMDP]

Mr.72

Well, of the people are unarmed, then they do not have a choice, do they?

How do "renegade groups" take over the government, unless they are the only ones who are armed and able to mount an offensive?

No, the people do not. But then i am not talking about getting rid of arms.

How does anyone take over the govt? If someone has a private army that is strong enough then they could attempt it. Look at columbia.

You are totally misreading that.

The right for the people to keep and bear arms is in spite of or in addition to the need for a a well-regulated militia.

Except for the fact that most things prior to this show this is not true.

If bear arms did not have any context with the militia, if it could stand alone and be the same, then carry and conceal would be protected. it clearly is not.

Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 280 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

That bearing arms means being in the militia as opposed to carrying arms is again proven with this case.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

“We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

This from Mr Gerry on the debate over the future 2A.

Mr. Gerry — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government; if we could suppose that in all cases the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now it must be evident, that under this provision, together with their other powers, congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as make a standing army necessary.

Bearing arms is ONLY bearing arms in the militia. Not where and when you choose, but in the militia. This would not be possible if the militia part were not connected and changing the meaning of the RKBA.

was so that the militia is the only legitimate body that can take over govt, that this must have state appointed officers, rather than anyone, these are safeguards.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the 2A or the whole founding doctrine of the United States of America.

Why? They did not set up the constitution in order for a legitimate govt to be destroyed.

This is a fallacious argument. Security will only break down if only certain groups of people or people are armed. But if all people are armed then they are all on equal footing.

You mean if all people have nuclear weapons they are equal? Yes, equally dead.

 

[OMDP]

Art Eatman

The BOR serves as a restriction upon the central government, the "Feds". It is totally irrational to believe that people who foresaw a need to restrain the central government from abusing its power would at the same time intend that restraint to apply to individual citizens.

The question is what is protected? Are all arms protected for all citizens? Or did the 2A just prevent the govt from being able to destroy the source of arms and personnel for the militia?

 

[OMDP]

ConstitutionalCowboy

If you'll get off the kick that the Second Amendment is about what rights I have - which it's not - and on to the fact that the Second Amendment prohibits government to infringe the right, it'll go a lot smoother. ONLY government is prohibited to infringe the RKBA. You can disallow me to carry arms in your house. That said, keeping a nuke in an apartment building in Manhattan is benign and innocuous. Detonating such a devise there would certainly cause a problem, so, law can be written forbidding me to detonate such a devise in an apartment building in Manhattan. That would constitute "use" and use is not protected by the Second Amendment(or anything else in the Constitution that I'm aware of.

Again, i know only the govt can be prevented from doing something. The difference here is in what the govt can be prevented from doing by the 2A. They are prevented from stopping citizens of the US from being able to have arms and prevented from stopping them going in the militia.
Now, the govt has the ability to ban certain types of weapons, and still have the people being able to keep and bear arms.
The govt is prevented from stopping the people from getting arms, NOT from banning certain types of weapons.

The fact that nuclear material can easily be leaked by someone with such a device, on purpose or not, poses a threat. The fact that if someone did detonate the bomb, you would have more to deal with than just saying, oh let's arrest the guy. How many would die in NY city? 10 million people perhaps?
This weapon poses a serious security risk.

Fear not, though OMDP. There is nothing to prevent government from regulating or cornering the market on fissile materials before those materials become weaponized in the hands of the hoi polloi.

Which seems to suggest that the govt could prevent companies building any decent sized arms, by preventing the relevant material being bought in the first place.

 

[basicblur]

You are totally misreading that.
The right for the people to keep and bear arms is in spite of or in addition to the need for a a well-regulated militia.

Well I’m glad to see I’m not the only one that interprets it that way!

Except for the fact that most things prior to this show this is not true.
If bear arms did not have any context with the militia, if it could stand alone and be the same, then carry and conceal would be protected. it clearly is not.

Not going to address the “carry and conceal” parts as that could be two entirely different things (I don’t know that allowing one to bear arms means allowing one to conceal ‘em?)

BUT

AFA bearing arms being in the context of the militia, consider the following simple explanation from Dr. Nelson Lund, of George Mason University (perhaps our foremost Constitutional scholar on the Second Amendment.)

"Another very significant grammatical feature of the Second Amendment is that the operative clause ("...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed") is a command. Because nothing in that command is grammatically qualified by the prefatory assertion, the operative clause has the same meaning that it would have had if the preamble had been omitted or even if the preamble were demonstrably false."

"Consider a simple example. Suppose that a college dean announces: "The teacher being ill, class is cancelled." Nothing about the dean's prefatory statement, including its truth or falsity, can qualify or modify the operative command. If the teacher called in sick to watch a ball game, the cancellation of the class remains unaffected. If someone misunderstood a phone message and inadvertently misled the dean into thinking the teacher would be absent, the dean's order is not thereby modified."

For more of Dr. Lund's writings, visit:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/wm1851.cfm
(You can download multiple articles, court briefs and filings (all in PDF format) at this site.)

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I would entertain the idea of in-home posession and limiting the restriction to violent felons only.

The violent felons are the only felons who need to be kept locked up, not all felons. That way, there is no need to worry who is walking around armed!

Again, i know only the govt can be prevented from doing something. The difference here is in what the govt can be prevented from doing by the 2A. They are prevented from stopping citizens of the US from being able to have arms and prevented from stopping them going in the militia.
Now, the govt has the ability to ban certain types of weapons, and still have the people being able to keep and bear arms.
The govt is prevented from stopping the people from getting arms, NOT from banning certain types of weapons.

I'd like you to show me where government is given power to ban certain weapons from possession by the people in the Constitution. I 'd like you to show me where government has been granted power to ban the existence of a weapon in the Constitution as well.

Before you do that, though, please read the following :

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is parenthetical. It can be separated and made into a complete sentence on its own. It is not dependent upon, "The right of the people...". It says, "A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state." That was made necessary by Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16. For all intents and purposes, the Second Amendment says, "Because we must rely upon the Militia(being necessary) for our security, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Constitution made us reliant on the militia. It limits the Army to no more than two year funding(Article I, Section 8, Clause 12). Congress has power to provide and maintain a Navy(Article I, Section 8, Clause 13). It isn't commanded to do so. Congress isn't commanded to raise and support armies. That is the main reason that a well regulated militia is necessary to our security. That is the main reason our right to keep and bear arms - any and all arms - should not be infringed. That IS commanded by the Constitution by the Second Amendment ratified thereto.​

And the following:

Where do you suppose the Union obtained its authority to arm itself with nukes? From our right to arm ourselves with nukes - or any other weapon. We have the right. From that right we loan power to a few of us, give them money to pool, and those to whom we've loaned that power take that money and build weapons we couldn't afford to build on our own. Some of us do have enough money and the Constitution doesn't prohibit - in fact protects - our right to those weapons.

How those weapons are used can be governed. The unlimited use of weapons is not protected by the Constitution, nor is it authorized to the Union except in war or through the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.

Hmmm, "...through the militia...". Well, what'd'ya know! That's us, ain't it? Seems to me, when an invading army aboard an enemy fleet sneaks up on us, and some one of us sees it coming, wouldn't it be prudent to take out that shipboard army before they land? I think a nuke could be aimed accurately enough to take out that fleet and not destroy the whole country. Bigger targets require bigger weapons. It's just a matter of scale and having the weapons that fill the bill available. It only takes one finger to press the button.

The government is forbidden to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The right itself is without limit. All power granted to the government is derived from the inalienable rights of the people. If the right of people to keep and bear arms contained any limits, the people could not grant power to the government for it to keep and bear up unlimited arms to defend the nation. In any scenario, the government cannot limit the people's right to arms to any lesser degree than the power of that government to possess arms as is granted to it by, and from, the people. In granting power to our government to keep and bear arms to defend our nation, we do not surrender any of the right from which that power is derived. To surrender, or even simply deny any portion of the right exists, is to also deny the same derived power to the government.

Without that central or a state government, we would have to defend our land ourselves and would have every right to access, create, bear, and deliver any weapon necessary to that end. We simply grant some of that power to the government out of convenience. We did not surrender any of that power to the government, either. Purposefully, Article I, Section 8, begins, "Congress shall have power;" and not, "Congress shall have the power;". We still have as much right to any and all weapons as we have granted power to the government to have.

It follows, then, that should the government(by the actions of those chosen to run the government) wish to limit in any way the fashion in which we so choose to keep and bear our arms, it can not do so without infringing upon the right. In that the right is inalienable, not even we the people can divest ourselves of it, therefore, we can not grant power to the government to limit our keeping and bearing of arms. We can share our right to keep and bear arms with the government as a power granted to it, but cannot surrender any of it to the government. The bottom line is that the government is, and is of, us. It cannot do to us anything we cannot do to ourselves.

Go read the Preamble to the Constitution. WE ordained and WE established the Constitution. WE had(and still do have) the RIGHT to do that, would you not agree? We have the right to govern ourselves. We exercised that right to establish(construct) the Constitution and ordain(to appoint) it as the foundation for our government. All power granted or delegated to the government is derived from our right to govern ourselves. The power of the government is inferior to any right or rights we the people have. It is the same no matter what the right might be. Just as the government has no power, nor could it ever have the power, to control my right to think, it does not, nor could it ever have, the power to control how I choose to keep and bear my arms. It is that simple.
________________________________________________________________

The Freedom of Speech isn't absolute, but the right to keep and bear arms is. You can cause harm with your speech while the simple keeping and bearing of arms is benign and innocuous.

Arms cause no harm unless you launch, press the button, pull the trigger, light the fuse, plunge the plunger, crank the handle, swing the sword, loose the arrow, etc., etc. It's the same with words. Until you use them, they too are benign and innocuous. The Second Amendment doesn't limit government from governing some of the uses of arms where as the First Amendment does limit how government can limit the use of words. See the difference? First amendment covers use. Second Amendment only covers keep and bear.

You can pass law that would forbid you to practice with your nukes on land or anywhere within a thousand miles from the surface of the Earth. That's "use" and not keep and bear.​

Woody

Our government was designed by our Founding Fathers to fit within the framework of our rights and not vise versa. Any other "interpretation" of the Constitution is either through ignorance or is deliberately subversive. B.E. Wood

 

[OMDP]

Basicblur

You are totally misreading that.
The right for the people to keep and bear arms is in spite of or in addition to the need for a a well-regulated militia.

Well I’m glad to see I’m not the only one that interprets it that way!

To an extent it is. The RKBA can exist even if the govt has left the militia to rot. That is not the point. The point is that in the event of future problems, the basis for the militia is there to be formed at a moment's notice.

Not going to address the “carry and conceal” parts as that could be two entirely different things (I don’t know that allowing one to bear arms means allowing one to conceal ‘em?)

Well, i will look at constitutionalcowboy's argument. He claims that all arms are protected because the govt cannot infringe on the right to keep arms, therefore ALL bearing (reading carrying) must also be protected, ie carrying and concealing, carrying and not concealing, the US govt cannot prevent anyone from carrying a weapon before due process.

So it is a matter of choice. Do you go with something that not only has not even been protected even by common law, the Supreme Court says is not protected, which also means ALL arms are protected.
Or do you see it as the govt cannot prevent people being in the militia, and cannot prevent individuals from owning arms, though being able to limit the arms available?

"Another very significant grammatical feature of the Second Amendment is that the operative clause ("...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed") is a command. Because nothing in that command is grammatically qualified by the prefatory assertion, the operative clause has the same meaning that it would have had if the preamble had been omitted or even if the preamble were demonstrably false."

May i point out first that in the Heller case i disagree not only with the DC side but also Heller/Shelly Parker side. The main problem with this amendment is that people are fighting their side.
The fact is that the founding fathers did associate "bear arms" with "A well regulated militia", the Supreme Court has also done this in a mild manner.

The problem is you tell someone, the RKBA is dependent upon the militia, they listen to, the RKBA is only for the militia. Why? Because that is what they want to hear. You tell someone they have the RKBA and they assume this means they are protected to keep, carry, use, hunt and everything else you can "legally" do with a gun, when this is also not so. Keeping and being in the militia are the main points that are protected. Buying and selling arms is protected to an extent, transportation of arms is protected to an extent.

"Consider a simple example. Suppose that a college dean announces: "The teacher being ill, class is cancelled." Nothing about the dean's prefatory statement, including its truth or falsity, can qualify or modify the operative command. If the teacher called in sick to watch a ball game, the cancellation of the class remains unaffected. If someone misunderstood a phone message and inadvertently misled the dean into thinking the teacher would be absent, the dean's order is not thereby modified."

This just shows that he thinks he can get around this with a few examples. Nothing in this mentions the word "bear" which has many meanings.

Now, if i wrote "John saw the oldtimer" and then put "it flew past at 300mph" it would means something different to "his next door neighbour of thirty years"

This is what we have here. It is not about grammar, it is about context. Now, the founding fathers used "bear" in the context of being in the militia, why should this change?

 

[OMDP]

ConstitutionalCowboy

I'd like you to show me where government is given power to ban certain weapons from possession by the people in the Constitution. I 'd like you to show me where government has been granted power to ban the existence of a weapon in the Constitution as well.

Commerce clause.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is parenthetical. It can be separated and made into a complete sentence on its own. It is not dependent upon, "The right of the people...". It says, "A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state." That was made necessary by Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16.

Well yes it can, you know why? Because state constitutions prior to 1791 had this without a RBA or RKA clause in it.

The fact is, that bear arms means something, and it means something in the context of the WHOLE amendment. There is no semi-colon in between, it is not separate. The fact is, the amendment is talking about the militia. The founders spoke about the RBA in the context of the militia, the Supreme Court has done so, so why am i going to think it is any different.

How those weapons are used can be governed. The unlimited use of weapons is not protected by the Constitution, nor is it authorized to the Union except in war or through the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.

Let me get this straight. The right to bear arms CAN be limited, but the right to keep arms CANNOT be limited? How do you figure that one out?

If the right of people to keep and bear arms contained any limits, the people could not grant power to the government for it to keep and bear up unlimited arms to defend the nation.

As i have said many times, there is no right to have an army three times the size of the US army. The constitution has to protect itself and its legitimate govt.

Go read the Preamble to the Constitution. WE ordained and WE established the Constitution.

Yes, in order to form a more perfect union, NOT to form a union that will kill itself.

 

[mr.72]

OMDP I think the key here is you are interpreting "bear" to mean "use".

They are not synonyms.

"Bear" is more like "possess".

"Keep" then therefore is more like "retain" or "not to give away".

"Use" of arms is not protected by the 2A and is subject to regulation.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

mr.72

There are several other words that mean something different in OMDP's world. Reminds me of a line from "Princess Bride":

" You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."​

OMDP

Well, if the Commerce Clause can be used to ban certain weapons from possession by the people, and ban the existence of a weapon, what's keeping them from banning all weapons from the people and/or their very existence?

Woody