My Issue With The 2008 Second Amendment Decision

[Nous]

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.

Prove it.

Apparently you are claiming that Scalia was just wrong in his dicta in Heller concerning the constitutionality of laws that prohibit felons from purchasing guns. Apparently you are claiming that all those laws prohibiting felons from purchasing guns are unconstitutional. Prove it.

 

[Curious George]

Prove it.

Apparently you are claiming that Scalia was just wrong in his dicta in Heller concerning the constitutionality of laws that prohibit felons from purchasing guns. Apparently you are claiming that all those laws prohibiting felons from purchasing guns are unconstitutional. Prove it.

I really expected better understanding of how the laws worked from you. That a law exists prohibiting a felon from purchasing a gun while at the same time noting that the constitution recognizes a right of all people to keep and bear arms does not mean that the law restricting such a right is unconstitutional.

You are dealing with competing rights. When rights compete it does not mean that one is extinguished and the other continues. One yields to the other.

 

[Nous]

. . .a law exists prohibiting a felon from purchasing a gun while at the same time noting that the constitution recognizes a right of all people to keep and bear arms

False, on both counts. No statute "notes that the constitution recognizes a right of all people to keep and bear arms," and the Constitution does not "recognize a right of all people to keep and bear arms". Further, no court has ever held that felons have a right to keep or bear arms.

 

[Curious George]

False, on both counts. No statute "notes that the constitution recognizes a right of all people to keep and bear arms," and the Constitution does not "recognize a right of all people to keep and bear arms". Further, no court has ever held that felons have a right to keep or bear arms.

The constitution certainly recognizes a right for all people to keep and bear arms. The noun people is not qualified. Regarding felons and armso, I think that two cases just went through(not supreme Court though) but that is not the point. The issue here is not whether they have no right to keep and bear arms, it is whether they have had their right limited (not extinguished) constitutionally. And they presumptively have. They were given due process and in to their sentencing they also face civic penalties which have been upheld by courts.

I do not see what you are having issues understanding. Have you read cases concerning felon voting rights? Or even freedom of speech cases where we do see freedom of speech limited. Rights can be limited and no right is unfettered. That said, your want to read rights as to extinguish them is alarming.

 

[Nous]

The constitution certainly recognizes a right for all people to keep and bear arms.

Again, explicitly false.

The issue here is not whether they have no right to keep and bear arms, it is whether they have had their right limited (not extinguished) constitutionally.

I noted that "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." Felons are among those that constitutional state and federal laws prohibit to purchase and possess firearms, thus directly refuting your P1 proposition.

Your argument is unsound.

Moreover, your argument doesn't even conclude anything about "the types of defense contemplated" by the crafters of the Second Amendment, which you claimed to have somehow deduced, and by which we are supposed to infer that the statutes prohibiting the possession of machines guns are unconstitutional. You flit from one irrelevancy to another and never get around to showing that any of your nonsense is true. If your claims were true, your posts would contain a hyperlink so that you could say, "See, I'm not just making this stuff up myself."

 

[siti]

Simply declaring "of course they did . . ." is not an argument.

Of course it is! Especially when I have already made the argument repeatedly - including comments about the historical context and the clearly stated views of the framers themselves on the desirability (not just the right) of individual gun ownership. Its the "keep" bit if you want to reserve "bear" for military use. What do you suppose they meant by "keep" - that people should have a weapon in the kitchen cupboard or on the mantle piece and never touch it until called upon to serve in the "well-regulated militia"? That's just silly. You can dissect the words all you like but the intent was clear - the problem is not that - the problem is the insistence of 21st century Americans on treating the second amendment (in particular) as sacrosanct and then trying to twist its meaning one way or the other depending on their personal political viewpoint. That too is just silly.

 

[Curious George]

Again, explicitly false.

Yeah you can keep saying that but the line says "...the people's right to keep and bear arms..." "People" are not qualified. This is not hard.

I noted that "your P1 proposition--'all people have a right to keep and bear arms'--is unequivocally false.

And I explained how you were wrong. People's rights to keep and bear arms have been limited in some respects. I agree with this. That does not mean that all people do not have a right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment does say that.

The Second Amendment acknowledges this right of all people. Of who exactly do you think an unqualified group of people consists?

No court has ever interpreted the Second Amendment as saying that.

No court has interpreted a the second Amendment as an individual right?

Your proposition is directly refuted by state and federal statutes that prohibit a variety of persons from purchasing or possessing firearms."

Well federal yes, state not so much. The Constitution applied to the federal government not the state. Incorporating the 2nd Amendment didn't happen for some time.

[/quote]
Felons are among those that constitutional state and federal laws prohibit to purchase and possess firearms, thus directly refuting your P1 proposition.
[/quote] Again you are mistaken as I have already explained . What do you not understand? That a right is limited does not mean that no right exists. Yet you want to say say:

Your argument is unsound.

It is simply not true. The government has infringed on the people's right to keep and bear arms. They did so in a way similar to that of their abridging free speech. Do you understand that?

[/quote]
Moreover, your argument doesn't even conclude anything about "the types of defense contemplated" by the crafters of the Second Amendment, which you claimed to have somehow deduced, and by which we are supposed to infer that the statutes prohibiting the possession of machines guns are unconstitutional. You flit from one irrelevancy to another and never get around to showing that any of your nonsense is true. If your claims were true, your posts would contain a hyperlink so that you could say, "See, I'm not just making this stuff up myself."[/QUOTE]

Yeah the original did. But you have taken us on this tangent. All types of arms that were available then were contemplated. Again the type of arms were not qualified. However, Types of weapons that bear no reasonable relationship or have no historical analog to arms of the time would not be considered.

 

[Nous]

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.

I have already made the argument repeatedly

No, you haven't made an argument on this thread. You've made assertions, including specifically false ones.

Not only have not stated any argument, you haven't explained why the crafters of the Second Amendment chose to exclude the language specifying personal-use purposes for armaments such as found in PA's and VT's Declarations of Rights.

You haven't explained why, even if it were true that the crafters of the Second Amendment intended to secure a right to "keep and bear arms" for personal-use purposes such as self-defense of the home against intruders, laws such as the two struck down in Heller would not still be constitutional nonetheless. (After all, the DC laws did not prevent people from having other kinds of firearms.)

 

[Nous]

Yeah you can keep saying that but the line says "...the people's right to keep and bear arms..." "People" are not qualified. This is not hard.

And I explained how you were wrong. People's rights to keep and bear arms have been limited in some respects. I agree with this. That does not mean that all people do not have a right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment acknowledges this right of all people. Of who exactly do you think an unqualified group of people consists?


No court has interpreted a the second Amendment as an individual right?


Well federal yes, state not so much. The Constitution applied to the federal government not the state. Incorporating the 2nd Amendment didn't happen for some time.

Felons are among those that constitutional state and federal laws prohibit to purchase and possess firearms, thus directly refuting your P1 proposition.

Again you are mistaken as I have already explained . What do you not understand? That a right is limited does not mean that no right exists. Yet you want to say say:

It is simply not true. The government has infringed on the people's right to keep and bear arms. They did so in a way similar to that of their abridging free speech. Do you understand that?

Moreover, your argument doesn't even conclude anything about "the types of defense contemplated" by the crafters of the Second Amendment, which you claimed to have somehow deduced, and by which we are supposed to infer that the statutes prohibiting the possession of machines guns are unconstitutional. You flit from one irrelevancy to another and never get around to showing that any of your nonsense is true. If your claims were true, your posts would contain a hyperlink so that you could say, "See, I'm not just making this stuff up myself."

Yeah the original did. But you have taken us on this tangent. All types of arms that were available then were contemplated. Again the type of arms were not qualified. However, Types of weapons that bear no reasonable relationship or have no historical analog to arms of the time would not be considered.

So you are not able to show that felons have a right to "keep and bear arms".

That's how we know that your argument is unsound.

 

[Curious George]

So you are not able to show that felons have a right to "keep and bear arms".

That's how we know that your argument is unsound.

Sure find a felon with a knife. It is not a question of whether they have a right to keep and bear arms, it is a question of how has that right been limited.

 

[siti]

No, you haven't made an argument on this thread. You've made assertions, including specifically false ones.

OK - you win - I give up. I admit I did not make an argument when I said that the semantic argument made by Justice Stevens and repeated ad nauseum by yourself was taking the second amendment out of context historically and probably legally and then supported by argument with historical evidence including direct quotations of the framers showing their opinions on individual gun ownership. In that case you opted to denigrate the source that you supposed I got them from - but you failed to demonstrate any lack of validity or veracity, and you also claimed that I had quoted an incomplete versions of the relevant 2nd amendment clause and then to prove your point quoted a more complete version which was, in fact a verbatim copy of the version I quoted. I admit that I did not make an argument when I pointed out the very different socio-political circumstances under which it was written. And I admit that I did not make an argument when I mentioned as relevant the context of the legal background against which it was drafted (English Bill of Rights, Virginia Constitution etc.) and how this was rather more important to interpreting what the drafters of the second amendment might have intended than taking a single word and focusing solely on the definition of that word without thinking about how that word is embedded in the language of the entire passage, and the legal, historical and socio-political context surrounding its writing. I even quoted a famous lexicographer of the time to demonstrate what he thought about the question (I'm guessing you missed that). But anyway, never mind - you win - none of that constitutes an argument so you carry on with Justice Stevens with your semantics - and see how far you get. Please don't repeat "you haven't made an argument" again - I get it - if you can't refute it, deny it. Its OK - I concede. And if I sound pissed - its not personal - its just that I have lost hope on this issue and thousands of young Americans will die whilst a bunch of silly old farts argue about what some words on a centuries-old piece of paper might mean. It all just sounds so nauseatingly and preposterously religious.

 

[wandering peacefully]

It is one sentence but they are separate clauses in the same sentence. The establishment clause and the free exercise clause are also part of the same sentence. I understand how the issue is commonly discussed. I think most people rely on the "constitution" to support the fact that they do not want someone telling them what they can or cannot have. But some not understanding the reasoning behind it does not make the reasoning behind it any less important.

So you agree the reason behind "it" is that a well regulated militia is necessary so the right of militiamen to bear arms shall not be infringed upon?

I think it may have been necessary to have well regulated militias in the past but now we have the armed forces. It is most likely an outdated need like slavery or prohibition on women voting. Maybe time to repeal or abolish "it"?

 

[wandering peacefully]

And as I pointed out in my OP, neither did the majority of the judges in the 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller decision. The Second Amendment may just as well read. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

.

I just don't understand the difficulty in reading the phrase and interpreting it in the English it is written in. If it was meant to read and mean that every Joe and Jane on the street can keep and bear arms it would have said that. It does not say that at all. In fact, the sentence clearly starts with the main subject of the phrase which is a well regulated militia. It then continues on to explain how that militia should be armed.

 

[Curious George]

So you agree the reason behind "it" is that a well regulated militia is necessary so the right of militiamen to bear arms shall not be infringed upon?

I think it may have been necessary to have well regulated militias in the past but now we have the armed forces. It is most likely an outdated need like slavery or prohibition on women voting. Maybe time to repeal or abolish "it"?

No that is not the reason for "it." The reason for the second amendment was to keep the federal government from disarming the people. The primary reason for not disarming the people was to ensure that militia men had weapons. This however was not the only reason. It was a reason worth highlighting so the Militia could not be dismantled but it could not have been the only reason as the constitution acknowledges keeping and bearing arms is a right of the people that shall not be infringed not a right of the military.

 

[Nous]

Sure find a felon with a knife.

Where is the government prevented from denying felons the "right" to purchase or possess knives? A variety of states prohibit the purchase and/or possession of dirks for everyone.

So you are still not able to deduce from any fact that felons have a right to "keep and bear arms".

 

[Nous]

OK - you win - I give up.

You should have before you misattributed Virginia's current Constitution.

But you wrote a lot in your latest post after "giving up". Was there anything there of importance--anything that resembles an argument that the crafters of the Second Amendment intended to secure a right to possess and use armaments for personal-use purposes?

 

[Nous]

The primary reason for not disarming the people was to ensure that militia men had weapons. This however was not the only reason.

If the crafters of the Second Amendment intended to secure a right for individuals to possess and use armaments for personal-use purposes, then they could have and would have included that purpose in the sentence, exactly like Pennsylvania's and Vermont's Declarations of Rights do.

 

[Curious George]

Where is the government prevented from denying felons the "right" to purchase or possess knives? A variety of states prohibit the purchase and/or possession of dirks for everyone.

So you are still not able to deduce from any fact that felons have a right to "keep and bear arms".

Well we can move to baseball bats or mace if you like, but I am talking about the federal government. We can also note that felons in prison are temporarily deprived of any right to have arms. You are certainly missing the point. Felons are people. They have a right to keep and bear arms. That such a right is limited does not mean that the right is extinguished. The constitution acknowledges that an individual right to keep and bear arms exists for "the people." The people are not qualified. But in instances where a law can survive the necessary scrutiny, then one's rights may be limited.

This is not a hard problem. I have already offered several analogues for comparison.

 

[Curious George]

If the crafters of the Second Amendment intended to secure a right for individuals to possess and use armaments for personal-use purposes, then they could have and would have included that purpose in the sentence, exactly like Pennsylvania's and Vermont's Declarations of Rights do.

No. If they had intended the right to have only provided for militia men, then they would not have used the words "the people's right to keep and bear arms."

 

[siti]

You should have before you misattributed Virginia's current Constitution.

But you wrote a lot in your latest post after "giving up". Was there anything there of importance--anything that resembles an argument that the crafters of the Second Amendment intended to secure a right to possess and use armaments for personal-use purposes?

Oops! I did do that didn't I? What a mistaka to maka! (1-nil to @Nous) Yes indeed, they put the extra words in later (much later it seems - I'm guessing Virginians took a bit longer to become sufficiently slow of wit to need it spelled out) to explain to the hard of understanding how the hell, in the absence of a standing professional army, "the body of the people" could be "trained to arms" without "keeping" arms at their disposal (personally, individually) so that they could "train" themselves (personally, individually) to "bear arms" and thereby be ready and able when called upon to act as part of a "well-regulated militia" in defense of the state.

By contrast, your argument seems essentially to boil down to the suggestion that the various Constitutions and Bills of Rights that protect the freedom to keep and bear arms were, in fact, unless specifically stated otherwise, intended to imply that the defense of the state was to be left in the hands of a non-professional, yet "well-regulated militia" composed of the "body of the people" who would, at the commencement of battle, immediately leap to the defense of the nation by fiddling and farting around trying figure out how to load and fire a weapon they had never clapped eyes on before?