freyasman
Senator
Ok, I see what your saying. Isn't making these "concepts" a "reality" what we all should be striving for?
The Second Amendment
- Thread starter H. Muir
- Start date
Ok, I see what your saying. Isn't making these "concepts" a "reality" what we all should be striving for?
Z
zzigzzag
Guest
Let me get this straight. We had the right to do everything until the government came along, and by exclusion, defined what is not protected, but our rights are not limited to what they said we could do.
Yeah....someone else has an inverted view. What you have there is a perfectly garbled Trapdoor premise for a winding trip to nowhere (your favorite destination) in this thread.
No, you simply don't understand the Preamble of the United State Constitution. Where does the government derived it's powers? From "we the people." The people are ceding certain powers to the government, in the name of good government.
Powers not ceded to the government are retained by the people. The Bill of Rights doesn't "give" rights to the people -- the people would have had rights if no Bill of Rights had ever been written. That you don't understand this is part of the problem we have with governance today -- an uninformed electorate that doesn't understand the basic tenets of our system of government.
Z
zzigzzag
Guest
****
You have navigated the semantic maze of our gunnie tag team all the way to the obvious.
You have navigated the semantic maze of our gunnie tag team all the way to the obvious.
freyasman
Senator
The representatives are people, too, chosen by the people they represent -- hence people make the law. I don't want mob rule -- I like our representative republic. I just know where it gets its power, and where other powers are retained. It's why I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution.
Certainly.
We are living it as we speak. States Rights battles are ongoing on the wedding equality and marijuana issues...and abortion.
The thrust of our history has been the expansion of rights to all. Slavery and suffrage were two such battles that extended rights that were supposedly god given and inherent. Laws on the books infringed in these liberties but we do as you said...work to achieve the ideal stated by our founders.
Still...rights clearly can be infringed on different levels. And once an activity crosses a border or causes problems over property lines...that right ends as other's rights enter the space.
The people can definitely take the law into their own hands. This rare necessity is known as "revolution." I distinctly home it doesn't occur during my lifetime.
freyasman
Senator
:thumb:
freyasman
Senator
But "we the people" do...
NCmusicman
Governor
The Second Amendment - ... shall not be infringed.
Definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2
obsolete: defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>
— in·fring·ernoun
See infringe defined for English-language learners »
See infringe defined for kids »
Examples of INFRINGE
They claim that his use of the name infringes their copyright.
Her rights must not be infringed.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe
Definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2
obsolete: defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>
— in·fring·ernoun
See infringe defined for English-language learners »
See infringe defined for kids »
Examples of INFRINGE
They claim that his use of the name infringes their copyright.
Her rights must not be infringed.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe
Z
zzigzzag
Guest
The Bill of Rights doesn't "give" rights to the people
It "gives" them a definition. That's kinda basic in defining things....even if you spend your life standing on your head and talking through your butt to achieve winger nirvana.
It "gives" them a definition. That's kinda basic in defining things....even if you spend your life standing on your head and talking through your butt to achieve winger nirvana.
KnotaFrayed
Mayor
Proof that Supreme Court decisions are never the final word.
The Supreme Court's interpretations of the 1939 Miller opinion:
Konigsberg v. State Bar (1961); Footnote 10
That view, which of course cannot be reconciled with the law relating to libel, slander, misrepresentation, obscenity, perjury, false advertising, solicitation of crime, complicity by encouragement, conspiracy, and the like, is said to be compelled by the fact that the commands of the First Amendment are stated in unqualified terms: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . . ." But as Mr. Justice Holmes once said: "[T]he provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth." Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604, 610. In this connection also compare the equally unqualified command of the Second Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And see United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174.
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964); (concurring opinion of Black; Footnote 11)
... cases in which the commerce power has been used to advance other ends not entirely commercial: e. g., ... United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (National Firearms Act);
Adams v. Williams (1972); (dissenting opinion of Douglas, joined by Marshall)
The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."
"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." Id., at 178-179. Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia.
Lewis v. United States (1980); Footnote 8
(the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment).
Printz v. United States (1997) (concurring opinion of Thomas)
Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are at least 4 members of the SCOTUS who believe that if Miller could be construed to be about "certain" types of weapons, what defines what those weapons are? If one refers to "a well regulated Militia" and suggests that uninfringed, somehow means the "type of weapons" CAN be limited (infringed) the "logic" would seem no less "wrongheaded" than Miller is described as by the Heller decision and would seem circular. There is no reference in the 2nd Amendment, much less the Constitution about any relationship of "arms" to personal self defense. There IS a direct and stated relationship between "a well regulated Miliita", it "being necessary to the security of a free state" and a "right to keep and bear arms". The 2nd Amendment is related to both the Preamble of the Constitution, where "the common defense" a purpose the government, specifically the legislative branch (see Article I, Section 8).
People can "defend" themselves in a myriad of ways, there is nothing in the Constitution that mentions personal self defense, much less any connection to what "type of weapons" one can or cannot use in relation to their self defense.
The Federal government does not have the power, nor is it concerned with providing or managing someone's personal self defense, they can't stop someone from defending themselves, but they can "promote the general welfare (note the repeated use of words like "common" and "general") by limiting the "types of weapons" individuals use for their defense and they limit it by relating it to a duty in service toward "the common defense".
In other words, for an effective "common defense" and a functional dual role "well regulated Militia", those involved in that role CANNOT have access to the weapons they would use in service to "the common defense". If they are not involved in duty toward "the common defense" they don't need any specific right to access to any and all weapons they choose, where and when they want to use them. It is only a matter of time before another court case persents a hypocrisy (or circular logic) in the "self defense" "logic".
The SCOTUS, regardless of a slim majority based on the political philosophies of a majority of the justices cannot insert words and meanings in the Constitution that are not there. There is no wording that specifies anything about personal self defense, much less tying firearms to personal self defense, there ARE reference to and inclusion of, the wording that refers both to "the common defense" and "militia and what militia is necessary to the security of.
You can defend yourself anyway you see fit, you just don't have a right to do so in any way you see fit because the means you may choose to defend yourself has nothing to do with the "general welfare" or "the common defense" and may in fact, work against both.
As Justice Breyer and others have suggested, it is "circular reasoning" for a court or anyone to offer the suggestion, you have a right that cannot be infringed, BUT we're going to infringe upon it by saying that you can keep and bear "arms", you just cannot keep and bear any "arms" you wish to without being infringed upon.
If one can limit or infringe upon what type of arms can be used, what establishes where that limit line is drawn? If one ties it to that which someone in a "well regulated" miliitia would typically use, then one has come full circle suggesting the thing they say they are not suggesting.
KnotaFrayed
Mayor
Is this what you mean?
A revolution is only a victorious insurrection.
Those planning a revolution should be sure to make sure they have enough people behind them to ensure victory, otherwise they will be like the Timothy McVeighs of the world who took the idea that a revolution was needed into their own hands when the majority of people saw no reason to overthrow their governent, especially one that they have a part in choosing.
Yes, every government, even democratic ones, are vulnerable to tryranny and the tyrannical plans of tyrants, but that becomes harder in a government full of people that oppose one another, just as its people oppose one another, government and themselves (the private sector). Revolutions require a consensus and support of a large enough group to have a real chance of being successful, otherwise, it is an insurrection and just as our founders likely would have been, were they not successful because they lacked enough support, the instigators of the insurrection would be hung or jailed.
Corruptbuddha
Governor
How about the 'weapons in common use'?
No point in having a stick if the guy trying to break in has a gun, is there?
No point in having a stick if the guy trying to break in has a gun, is there?
Corruptbuddha
Governor
No, they still had their right to freedom, it was just being denied them.
Impossible. Rights are inherent and god given, goes the argument. How can they be denied?
But let's go with that. My right to smoke giant joints is being denied...Gay's rights to marry are being denied...and a woman's right to abortion is being denied...or at minimum, infringed. Indeed...doesn't any law infringe on someone's god given and inherent right?
Corruptbuddha
Governor
Because even though they are inherent (each man is entitled at birth) they can be taken by force or threat of force.
You have an inherent right to speak your mind....but hate-laws say that you can't.
You have an inherent right to speak your mind....but hate-laws say that you can't.
Libel, slander and incitement are against the law. These aren't hate laws...these are laws that protect people from those that want to hurt others. No...rights are subject to law...as Trap agreed to...and as you also state, but incorrectly attribute such laws to wrong sources.
They are man given...by law....and they can be taken away...by law.
fairsheet
Senator
H. Muir, your apparent suggestion that rights are "man made", as opposed to inherent, is right on. We don't have a "right" to free speech, unless and until our society agrees to enforce that right.
The ONLY actual "right" that can be ascribed to God, is the right to mortal death.
The ONLY actual "right" that can be ascribed to God, is the right to mortal death.
