Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Ingledsva]

Why not?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It means exactly that. We know from other information, articles of the time, etc., that it does mean the citizens have the right to own weapons, to keep themselves free from government tyranny.

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour.” -- George Washington, Address to 1st session of Congress

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed...” -- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- George Mason (who opposed ratification of the Constitution without the Bill of Rights)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…" -- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” -- Tench Cox (introduction to his discussion, and support, of the 2nd Amend) "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution", Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789, pg.2

*

 

[Curious George]

One must limit one's joining the revolution to those very rare times when it's worthwhile & popular.
And one must pick one's battles wisely.
Those were monstrously bad choices.

lol

Chicken soup for the Revoltingest

 

[BSM1]

Why not?

Why?

 

[Revoltingest]

lol

Chicken soup for the Revoltingest

!!!!!!!!!
I just had chicken soup for dinner!

 

[McBell]

Why not?

What do you think will happen if the 2nd amendment were to be repealed?

 

[Nous]

I'm making my own claim, the constitutional argument for which I've detailed in some of the many many other gun threads.

I'd like to hear your argument that the Amendment secures a broader right than the Heller court articulated.

 

[Nous]

Correct in that you agree with it?

Stevens provides the correct interpretation of the Amendment because his interpretation is substantiated by the historical record and his arguments are logical. Scalia was unable to make sense of the purpose of the prefatory clause references to a “well-regulated militia” and “security of a free State” in an amendment that was supposed to protect an “ancient right” of individual self-defense in the home by use of handguns.

Or are you going on a rant about how they ignored stare decisis?

If I were to "go on a rant about how they ignored stare decisis," what problem would you have with that?

 

[Curious George]

Stevens provides the correct interpretation of the Amendment because his interpretation is substantiated by the historical record and his arguments are logical. Scalia was unable to make sense of the purpose of the prefatory clause references to a “well-regulated militia” and “security of a free State” in an amendment that was supposed to protect an “ancient right” of individual self-defense in the home by use of handguns.

If I were to "go on a rant about how they ignored stare decisis," what problem would you have with that?

Then you didn't understand Scalia. No matter.

And, it is okay if you would like to rant about stare decisis, I just wanted to know if you planning on doing such or if you had substance.

 

[Nous]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It means exactly that. We know from other information, articles of the time, etc., that it does mean the citizens have the right to own weapons, to keep themselves free from government tyranny.

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour.” -- George Washington, Address to 1st session of Congress

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed...” -- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- George Mason (who opposed ratification of the Constitution without the Bill of Rights)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…" -- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” -- Tench Cox (introduction to his discussion, and support, of the 2nd Amend) "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution", Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789, pg.2

*

All of these are snippets. Have you read any of the complete documents in which they occur? Notice that none of them mention anything about a right to possess handguns in the home in case of an intruder.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd like to hear your argument that the Amendment secures a broader right than the Heller court articulated.

You'll have to search for them.
At the moment, celebrating the crushing of a vicious & evil foe.
(Trial has ended....awaiting verdict, & the next round of battles.)
I just can't muster the effort to post anything but easy conversation.

 

[Nous]

Then you didn't understand Scalia.

I have understood that he was unable to make sense of the prefatory clause. You certainly haven't explained why someone would start out a sentence protecting a right to possess handguns in the home in case of an intruder, with references to a well-regulated militia and the security of a free State.

[

And, it is okay if you would like to rant about stare decisis, I just wanted to know if you planning on doing such or if you had substance.

What previous decision(s) held the Amendment to secure a right to possess handguns in the home in case of an intruder?

 

[Nous]

You'll have to search for them.
At the moment, celebrating the crushing of a vicious & evil foe.
(Trial has ended....awaiting verdict, & the next round of battles.)

Oh, interesting. Victories in court are delicious. Can you tell us about it? I'm certain I'm glad you crushed the vicious and evil foe.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, interesting. Victories in court are delicious. Can you tell us about it? I'm certain I'm glad you crushed the vicious and evil foe.

I've made some posts here & there.
Very strange trial.....new judge not in control....opposing council unprepared & not too smart....I had my way with them.

 

[Curious George]

I have understood that he was unable to make sense of the prefatory clause. You certainly haven't explained why someone would start out a sentence protecting a right to possess handguns in the home in case of an intruder, with references to a well-regulated militia and the security of a free State.

[What previous decision(s) held the Amendment to secure a right to possess handguns in the home in case of an intruder?

Need there be precedent? Do you deny an assumed right to life? Do you deny an implicit right to self defense? However, common understanding and that the government has done nothing to contradict this assumption certainly demonstrates that the public understanding of the second amendment has been for quite some time consistent with the Heller ruling.

And yes Scalia did "make sense" of it. That you found his sense wanting matters little.

"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose."

 

[Draka]

I love the arguments claiming the need or desire to have a gun in the home for "self-defense". The only thing having a gun in the home does is exponentially increase the likelihood of someone within the home being killed by the gun. A person is far, FAR more likely to be killed or injured by their own gun, or accidentally do such to a family member, than ever truly have need to use said gun against an intruder. A gun in the home is more dangerous by far to the people residing in the home than to any perceived threat from outside. Just a fact.

Hell, just this morning I read two articles about men killing their kids accidentally with their guns. Two articles in the span of about an hour, from different places entirely, but happening near the same time. This is the **** that happens all the time. But gun nuts don't want to see it, admit it, acknowledge the problem. It's someone else. Not them. Wouldn't happen in their home. They're responsible. Bull. That's what every single person it happens to thought. That they were a responsible gun owner.

So tired of the stupid stupid defense argument. It isn't true. And as for fighting back against the government, stupid as well. Yeah, I don't care how many guns you have in your freak out shelter, you aren't taking down tanks, missiles, bombs, and trained military personnel with your private stock. Idiots. Through and through.

 

[McBell]

I love the arguments claiming the need or desire to have a gun in the home for "self-defense". The only thing having a gun in the home does is exponentially increase the likelihood of someone within the home being killed by the gun. A person is far, FAR more likely to be killed or injured by their own gun, or accidentally do such to a family member, than ever truly have need to use said gun against an intruder. A gun in the home is more dangerous by far to the people residing in the home than to any perceived threat from outside. Just a fact.

Hell, just this morning I read two articles about men killing their kids accidentally with their guns. Two articles in the span of about an hour, from different places entirely, but happening near the same time. This is the **** that happens all the time. But gun nuts don't want to see it, admit it, acknowledge the problem. It's someone else. Not them. Wouldn't happen in their home. They're responsible. Bull. That's what every single person it happens to thought. That they were a responsible gun owner.

So tired of the stupid stupid defense argument. It isn't true. And as for fighting back against the government, stupid as well. Yeah, I don't care how many guns you have in your freak out shelter, you aren't taking down tanks, missiles, bombs, and trained military personnel with your private stock. Idiots. Through and through.

You convinced me.
Now to convince the police, the secret service.....

 

[Curious George]

I love the arguments claiming the need or desire to have a gun in the home for "self-defense". The only thing having a gun in the home does is exponentially increase the likelihood of someone within the home being killed by the gun. A person is far, FAR more likely to be killed or injured by their own gun, or accidentally do such to a family member, than ever truly have need to use said gun against an intruder. A gun in the home is more dangerous by far to the people residing in the home than to any perceived threat from outside. Just a fact.

Hell, just this morning I read two articles about men killing their kids accidentally with their guns. Two articles in the span of about an hour, from different places entirely, but happening near the same time. This is the **** that happens all the time. But gun nuts don't want to see it, admit it, acknowledge the problem. It's someone else. Not them. Wouldn't happen in their home. They're responsible. Bull. That's what every single person it happens to thought. That they were a responsible gun owner.

So tired of the stupid stupid defense argument. It isn't true. And as for fighting back against the government, stupid as well. Yeah, I don't care how many guns you have in your freak out shelter, you aren't taking down tanks, missiles, bombs, and trained military personnel with your private stock. Idiots. Through and through.

Yet, it doesn't matter that one is statistically more likely to be harmed by having a gun in their house. That is a risk that gun owners are justified in taking. People have a right to assume risk. You are advocating a micromanagement system that to many is beyond ridiculous. This would be like the government outlawing premarital sex because one is more statistically more likely to get an std. If people want to assume the risk, that is their choice. If you want to combat that then you can delegate individual security to the government. Unfortunately that isn't happening. You can invent, invest, or advocate for better self defense ideas, but I don't see that happening either.

But that is just covering the basics. We haven't even seen if your statistics are correct. I am sure both the gun lobby and the anti gun lobby have statistics of all sorts. If we were to engage in serious study I am sure that we might be able to discuss statistics. But, just touting stats like this is not helpful.

 

[Nous]

Need there be precedent?

In order for the holding to abide by the principle of stare decisis.

And yes Scalia did "make sense" of it. That you found his sense wanting matters little.

"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose."

And it is that purpose that is not found in Scalia's interpretation of the Amendment Instead, he conjured up a whole new "ancient right" about self-defense in the home specifically with handguns.

 

[Draka]

You convinced me.
Now to convince the police, the secret service.....

Did I mentioned trained security/protection services? No. So does that have anything to do with civilians having guns in their homes? No. So did you make any point at all there? No.

 

[Nous]

I've made some posts here & there.

I would love it if you would link to one or two.