My Issue With The 2008 Second Amendment Decision

[Curious George]

So are unable to state the deduction that you claimed to have made because you cannot make deductions generally, or because the deduction you claimed to have made just has no basis in reality, is not premised on any fact?

No I will. I just find it amusing that you need it broken down for you in that way. I will return to it later today.

 

[Nous]

No I will. I just find it amusing that you need it broken down for you in that way. I will return to it later today.

Eagerly awaiting.

 

[siti]

And I take it you still have no facts by which to dispute that, exactly as Justice Stevens substantiated, the phrase "to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment has a military meaning, where the keeping and bearing arms occurs in the context of a well-regulated militia supported by states.

No one disputes that individuals had to operate the cannons that were among the arms that could be kept and beared by state-supported militias.

For the record, I have stated what the most relevant authorities - i.e. those who wrote the second amendment - thought about gun ownership and who the "well-regulated" militia would be composed of and whose weapons they would "bear" as part of that militia. But perhaps the most relevant "fact" is that Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion was not the majority opinion - don't you think?

So no - you can't take it that I have no facts, but you can take it like this - as long as you keep on arguing about the words on a 200+ year old document (arguing about words being your particular specialty it should be noted) you will get nowhere - and school kids will continue to die on the altar of anachronistic laws and semantic deliberations about them. At this point I am definitely going back to the standard British response to the whole gun thing in the US - shaking my head in disbelief.

BTW - the past participle of "bear" is "borne" - since we are (always) being so precise about words!

 

[Curious George]

Eagerly awaiting.

Sorry I was not able to attend sooner.

P1: all people have a right to keep and bear arms.
P2: Individuals not related to the Militia are People.
C1: Individuals not related to the Militia have a right to keep and Bear arms.

P3: All Individuals have a right to keep and bear arms.
P4: The Federal government is restricted from infringing on the people's rights to keep and bear arms.
P5: Limiting the purpose of keeping and bearing arms is an infringement.
C2: The Federal government is restricted from limiting the purpose of the people's right to keep and bear arms.

The constitution does not limit the rights of the people. The constitution outlines the powers of the federal government. You would have us read the constitution as a limit on people's rights. Trying to assert that the contemplation of right to keep and bear arms was in no way connected to the right of self defense. Yet we see Blackstone commenting on the English parallel saying

"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

In fact, we see the concept of self defense occurring in all of the philosophical writers which we recognize as having ample influence on the founding fathers. These authors include: Hobbes, Locke, Milton, Montesquieu, and Rousseau. It honestly seems absurd to imagine that the drafters recognized an unalienable right to self defense yet imagined that weapons would stay inaccessible save for threats to the common defense.

Nevermind that early courts recognized the second amendment as an individual right. Nevermind that early courts looked to Blackstone in their interpretation, and Nevermind that the consequence for reading the 2nd Amendment as you do potentially eliminates the entirety of the second amendment.

You comment that a reading of the second amendment that recognizes an individual right makes the prefatory clause superfluous, but do not stop to recognize that a collective right makes the entire second amendment superfluous. On what grounds could any individual make a claim regarding the violation of a second amendment, if we read this as a collectivist right?

 

[Nous]

For the record, I have stated what the most relevant authorities - i.e. those who wrote the second amendment - thought about gun ownership and who the "well-regulated" militia would be composed of and whose weapons they would "bear" as part of that militia.

You haven't shown that anyone "who wrote the Second Amendment" intended it to secure a right to possess or use armaments for personal-use purposes. Correct?

 

[Nous]

Sorry I was not able to attend sooner.

P1: all people have a right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment does not make any such assertion. State and federal statutes and a variety of Court decisions directly contradict P1--lots of people are prohibited from purchasing and possessing arms, e.g., felons, children, people who are "mentally defective".

Your argument is unsound.

 

[Curious George]

The Second Amendment does not make any such assertion. State and federal statutes and a variety of Court decisions directly contradict P1--lots of people are prohibited from purchasing and possessing arms, e.g., felons, children, people who are "mentally defective".

Your argument is unsound.

That doesn't make it unsound. There are also plenty of cases which allow for different handling of those classes even when a fundamental right is in question. Consider felons and the right to vote. Children under 18 and under 21 have historically been denied the right to vote and in some situations free speech. Further other fundamental rights have been denied to those mentally ill. This class based discrimination would not be guided by the Second amendment but by due process and equal protection.

So we are back to what I said. I never stated that classes could not be excluded from this right. I only said that our starting point was that all people had a right to keep and bear arms. According to the constitution the right is a right of the people not the militia.

 

[Skwim]

Sorry I was not able to attend sooner.

P1: all people have a right to keep and bear arms.
P2: Individuals not related to the Militia are People.
C1: Individuals not related to the Militia have a right to keep and Bear arms.

P1 is simply false, which, right off the bat, makes your syllogism unsound.
C1 is also untrue. For very important reasons some people are not allowed to keep and bear arms.

P3: All Individuals have a right to keep and bear arms.
P4: The Federal government is restricted from infringing on the people's rights to keep and bear arms.
P5: Limiting the purpose of keeping and bearing arms is an infringement.
C2: The Federal government is restricted from limiting the purpose of the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Again, P3 is untrue.
P4 is untrue. The Federal government can and does "infringe" on the people's rights to keep and bear arms. Those who are a fugitive from the law and the dangerously mentally ill cannot lawfully keep and bear arms.

The constitution does not limit the rights of the people.

Then what do you think Article 1, section 2:2 does when it says

"2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, . . . "​

OR, Article 2, Section 1:5

"5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"​

.

 

[Curious George]

P1 is simply false, which, right off the bat, makes your syllogism unsound.
C1 is also untrue. For very important reasons some people are not allowed to keep and bear arms.

P1 is not false nor is C1. That a person is denied a right does not mean that no right exists.

Again, P3 is untrue.
P4 is untrue. The Federal government can and does "infringe" on the people's rights to keep and bear arms. Those who are a fugitive from the law and the dangerously mentally ill cannot lawfully keep and bear arms.

This is true that the government does infringe on people's right to keep and bear arms. The reason for this is that no right is unfettered. Under sufficient scrutiny, it is okay to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms just as under sufficient scrutiny it is okay Congress can make laws that abridge the freedom of speech.

Then what do you think Article 1, section 2:2 does when it says

"2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, . . . "​

OR, Article 2, Section 1:5

"5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"​

.

These are examples relating to the government. It is shaping the government not the rights of the people. That the rights of the people are limited is a consequence of the former. The constitution sets forth a government. I understand your want to be contrary, but the intent of the constitution is not to constrain the people. If you do not understand this, then I suppose it is no wonder you have difficulty understanding the second amendment.

 

[Skwim]

P1 is not false nor is C1. That a person is denied a right does not mean that no right exists.

If a person is denied a right then that right does not exist for him, which means your "all people" is false. Not "all" people have a right to keep and bear arms. Your one person is the critical exception that negates your "all."

Perhaps you don't know what "all" means.

all
ôl/
predeterminer, determiner, & pronoun
determiner: all; pronoun: all
1. used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.​

It's a synonym for "every," and if one member of the group you're talking about doesn't have a right, then it's untrue that every person has that right.

Am I wrong to assume you should understand English grammar?

P1 is not false nor is C1. That a person is denied a right does not mean that no right exists.

I didn't say no rights exist, just that it's false that "all people have a right to keep and bear arms." Why do you make this so difficult for yourself?

These are examples relating to the government. It is shaping the government not the rights of the people. That the rights of the people are limited is a consequence of the former. The constitution sets forth a government. I understand your want to be contrary, but the intent of the constitution is not to constrain the people. If you do not understand this, then I suppose it is no wonder you have difficulty understanding the second amendment.

I give up. You obviously do have a problem with English usage.

Have a good day.

.

 

[Curious George]

If a person is denied a right then that right does not exist for him, which means your "all people" is false. Not "all" people have a right to keep and bear arms. Your one person is the critical exception that negates your "all."

Perhaps you don't know what "all" means.

all
ôl/
predeterminer, determiner, & pronoun
determiner: all; pronoun: all
1. used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.​

It's a synonym for "every," and if one member of the group you're talking about doesn't have a right, then it's untrue that every person has that right.

Am I wrong to assume you understand English grammar?


I didn't say no rights exist, just that it's false that "all people have a right to keep and bear arms." Why do you make this so difficult for yourself?



I give up. You obviously do have a problem with English usage.

Have a good day.

.

It is not with English. We say that all people have a right to free speech. Is this wrong? No, because we recognize this as a starting point.

You are choosing to be pedantic in order to prove a point that is not connected. That some people are at times or in some way denied free speech does not mean all people do not have a right to free speech. It just means that we believe such a right can be limited in certain situations. A right to free speech does not necessarily entail a right to all speech. Similarly, a right to keep and bear arms does not necessarily entail a right to always keep and bear arms.

Trying to attack the argument in the way that you are doing is silly. You disagree with the statement "the people have the right to keep and bear arms?"

This statement acknowledges a right of the people to keep and bear arms. Who does not possess that right? You say we have limited felons and children etc but we have limited them for a reason.

The declaration of independence reads "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

What were those unalienable rights? Was self defense among them? Is the right to keep and bear arms not linked to self defense through legal tradition? I am not the person who is trying to squeeze out a contrived meaning in order to push my political agenda. The people who argue for unfettered federal gun control are.

 

[siti]

You haven't shown that anyone "who wrote the Second Amendment" intended it to secure a right to possess or use armaments for personal-use purposes. Correct?

"Personal-use purposes"? How else is a hand gun used? Teamwork? Committee? Of course the people who wrote the second amendment meant to protect the right for individuals to "keep" weapons (i.e. guns) individually, and use them individually, so that when called upon to "bear" such weapons as part of a "well-regulated militia" they would be able and ready to do so with proficiency. I can't see how any reasonably intelligent person could possibly interpret this any other way.

 

[Nous]

That doesn't make it unsound.

@Skwim has already been more thorough about it than anyone should need to be.

Your P1 proposition--"all people have a right to keep and bear arms"--is unequivocally false. The Second Amendment does say that. No court has ever interpreted the Second Amendment as saying that. Your proposition is directly refuted by state and federal statutes that prohibit a variety of persons from purchasing or possessing firearms.

Your argument is unsound.

 

[Nous]

"Personal-use purposes"? How else is a hand gun used? Teamwork? Committee? Of course the people who wrote the second amendment meant to protect the right for individuals to "keep" weapons (i.e. guns) individually, and use them individually, so that when called upon to "bear" such weapons as part of a "well-regulated militia" they would be able and ready to do so with proficiency. I can't see how any reasonably intelligent person could possibly interpret this any other way.

So you do not attempt to argue that anyone "who wrote the Second Amendment" intended it to secure a right to possess or use armaments for personal-use purposes. Correct?

 

[Curious George]

@Skwim has already been more thorough about it than anyone should need to be.

Your P1 proposition--"all people have a right to keep and bear arms"--is unequivocally false. The Second Amendment does say that. No court has ever interpreted the Second Amendment as saying that. Your proposition is directly refuted by state and federal statutes that prohibit a variety of persons from purchasing or possessing firearms.

Your argument is unsound.

And has already been explained your assertion is akin to saying all people do not have the right to free speech. Or all people do not have a right to life or liberty. I believe your and @Skwim's inability to follow is do to a want to not understand.

 

[Nous]

And has already been explained your assertion is akin to saying all people do not have the right to free speech. Or all people do not have a right to life or liberty. I believe your and @Skwim's inability to follow is do to a want to not understand.

If your P1 were true, you would be able to show that it's true. Show that felons have "a right to keep and bear arms".

 

[esmith]

If your P1 were true, you would be able to show that it's true. Show that felons have "a right to keep and bear arms".

Well maybe the Obama administration did

 

[Curious George]

If your P1 were true, you would be able to show that it's true. Show that felons have "a right to keep and bear arms".

Sure they do. However this right has been limited to disallow keeping and bearing guns because such laws pass or would pass a level of scrutiny (in most cases). I am not sure if you are aware, but just because a right exists does not mean it is an unfettered right.

 

[siti]

So you do not attempt to argue that anyone "who wrote the Second Amendment" intended it to secure a right to possess or use armaments for personal-use purposes. Correct?

Are you being deliberately obtuse or does it come naturally? Of course they meant to protect (not secure as the right had already previously existed under the English Bill of Rights prior to Independence) the right of individuals personally to keep and to use guns - that is exactly what they meant to do. In the absence of a standing professional army, this was the only way a state could be sure of having a large enough cohort of competent arms-bearers to form a "well-regulated" militia for defense. The preamble establishes the need, the rationale, not the limit, of of the right to "keep and bear arms". Its really quite easy to interpret if you read it intelligently without biased preconceptions based on 21st century circumstances. You are never going to win an argument based on reinterpreting the 2nd amendment - even someone as smart as Justice Stevens couldn't do that.

 

[Nous]

So you do not attempt to argue that anyone "who wrote the Second Amendment" intended it to secure a right to possess or use armaments for personal-use purposes. Correct?

Of course they meant to protect (not secure as the right had already previously existed under the English Bill of Rights prior to Independence) the right of individuals personally to keep and to use guns

Then state your argument beginning with a fact that you can substantiate. Simply declaring "of course they did . . ." is not an argument.

Explain why the crafters of the Second Amendment did not include a right of individuals to "keep and bear" arms for personal-use purposes such as "in defense of themselves," as the Pennsylvania proposal specified, but specified the keeping and bearing of armaments only in the context of a well-regulated militia.

You claim that "the preamble establishes the need, the rationale, not the limit, of the right to 'keep and bear arms'." Show that your claim is true. In particular, show that the crafters of the Second Amendment intended to prevent laws such as the two DC laws struck down in Heller.