The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Not sure who she is trying to convince.
"Stop Hiding Behind the Second Amendment"
https://archive.is/AjfzI (Archived link.)

The Second Amendment reads, "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." Since militias are made up of citizens bearing arms, gun proponents argue that the right to keep and bear arms naturally extends to each citizen, who may use a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

For the first time in history, this perspective was supported in the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller. A civilian, the Court ruled, has a constitutional right to keep a handgun in his or her home for purposes of self-defense.

Nowhere in the text, however, is it stated that an individual right to keep and bear arms is preserved. More overtly, the text refers to the collection of people who would make up a militia if the federal government were to abuse its power.

Basically the same as this:
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3 ... 40&t=27241

Yeah. That whole piece is a mess. Common law self defense is one of the many reasons it didn't end up "clearer" in the BOR, not to mention common understanding of the militias definition.

I didn't feel the need to add it to any recent rant.

Preview of the opinion of the next Supreme Court appointee?

So the crux of her argument is that a dissenting justice in the Heller case has a different take and somehow that makes him (and thus her) stance correct?

A legal scholar she is not... A prefatory clause cannot restrict operative language. Such prefaces were common in English law in the 18th century and their limits have been understood. Even the preamble of the Constitution has no operative power according to the SCOTUS.

The 2nd amendment has always been an individual right. The collectivist interpretation didn't even exist until 1905 and even that was only at a state level, where the Kansas Supreme Court, in City of Salina v. Blaksley, ruled that the state constitution's right to arms only protected the state militia. However this was widely criticized by the 5th circuit and was not well received.

The collectivist stance has only gone "mainstream" in recent decades. It's a novel invention, far from the original intent.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights was the citizens granting the government power with understanding that certain limits needed to be put in place.

Thus I have GREAT difficulty believing that such a document would limit the ability to effect a right of the people.

What is this right?

The right to life.

If I have the right to life then I have the right to preserve my life without putting innocents at risk directly due to my actions. Based on that, I choose to exercise my right to self preservation with the best tool avaliable, a firearm.

How does she explain that the authorities have allowed individuals to own firearms for all these years? Was it just a huge oversight? "Now that the revolution is over, how are we going to get the peasants to turn in their firearms?" "I dunno, I guess we just have to let it go for now. It says right there in the Constitution that they have to be in the militia, but with everyone so fired up about democracy and freedom right now it wouldn't look very good to make them all turn in their guns, would it? Let's wait about 200 years and then see if it will fly."

Mikester wrote:Even the preamble of the Constitution has no operative power according to the SCOTUS.

Interesting thought.

If it did, "...promote the general welfare" would mandate socialism.

SilasSoule wrote:How does she explain that the authorities have allowed individuals to own firearms for all these years? Was it just a huge oversight? "Now that the revolution is over, how are we going to get the peasants to turn in their firearms?" "I dunno, I guess we just have to let it go for now. It says right there in the Constitution that they have to be in the militia, but with everyone so fired up about democracy and freedom right now it wouldn't look very good to make them all turn in their guns, would it? Let's wait about 200 years and then see if it will fly."

This is a good counter.

The antis picture gun owners as mouth beating morons who could be easily rounded up. The few with working brains would acknowledge their superior wisdom and turn in their weapons. At least that is the position of the antis I and my wife have contact with. Remember the constitution is a living document and evolves with the times as they see it. To them rights can be constricted to make them feel safe and comfortable. History has no bearing to them.Neo liberals and neo conservatives are authoritarians who are uncomfortable with freedom. To them the constitution is either an archaic document or a living organism that grows to fit their dreams. It is not the broad framework for a society. They would use the outlawing of legalsegrgation as as an example of how the court can reverse a decision. They ignore the act that the first decision said segregation could exist if facilities were equal. The decision.that outlawed segregation was based on the fact the facilities were not equal. The condition of the first decision were not met.

My personal opinion is that I think the militia issue is a helpful concept and would solve many issues and address the concerns of many. I think I stated on the list before that I think the whole gun issue went off course when we started allowing people to amass arsenals in isolation. I believe society itself has a responsibility in ensuring that firearms are owned and used responsibly. The concept of a militia is a useful social construct that provides an avenue for self policing. Instead of divorcing the two halves of the Second Ammendment, we ought to embrace it in totality.

Inquisitor wrote:

SilasSoule wrote:How does she explain that the authorities have allowed individuals to own firearms for all these years? Was it just a huge oversight? "Now that the revolution is over, how are we going to get the peasants to turn in their firearms?" "I dunno, I guess we just have to let it go for now. It says right there in the Constitution that they have to be in the militia, but with everyone so fired up about democracy and freedom right now it wouldn't look very good to make them all turn in their guns, would it? Let's wait about 200 years and then see if it will fly."

This is a good counter.

Problem with the above as an argument is that the peasants did turn in their arms- the muskets they used during The Revolution were the property of the state ( riflemen were the exception and usually armed themselves with personal weapons ).
I think firearm ownership in the newly independent U.S.A. was so ubiquitous that the Founders did not even give it much thought. Why require a settler on the Frontier to turn in his rifle? Might as well require him to give up his shovel- both were vital tools for survival.

comedian wrote:

Inquisitor wrote:

SilasSoule wrote:How does she explain that the authorities have allowed individuals to own firearms for all these years? Was it just a huge oversight? "Now that the revolution is over, how are we going to get the peasants to turn in their firearms?" "I dunno, I guess we just have to let it go for now. It says right there in the Constitution that they have to be in the militia, but with everyone so fired up about democracy and freedom right now it wouldn't look very good to make them all turn in their guns, would it? Let's wait about 200 years and then see if it will fly."

This is a good counter.

Problem with the above as an argument is that the peasants did turn in their arms- the muskets they used during The Revolution were the property of the state ( riflemen were the exception and usually armed themselves with personal weapons ).
I think firearm ownership in the newly independent U.S.A. was so ubiquitous that the Founders did not even give it much thought. Why require a settler on the Frontier to turn in his rifle? Might as well require him to give up his shovel- both were vital tools for survival.

Yes, but back then the arms were not as capable as the ones we have today. Hard to imagine a mass shooting happening with a musket.

The research, led by David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. For example, if people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments.

As a result, no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them. On top of that, "very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people don’t have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is," Dunning told Life's Little Mysteries.

link:

http://news.yahoo.com/people-arent-smar ... 01411.html

The existence of beer shows us that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

CDFingers

beto wrote:The antis picture gun owners as mouth beating morons who could be easily rounded up. The few with working brains would acknowledge their superior wisdom and turn in their weapons. At least that is the position of the antis I and my wife have contact with. Remember the constitution is a living document and evolves with the times as they see it. To them rights can be constricted to make them feel safe and comfortable. History has no bearing to them.Neo liberals and neo conservatives are authoritarians who are uncomfortable with freedom. To them the constitution is either an archaic document or a living organism that grows to fit their dreams. It is not the broad framework for a society. They would use the outlawing of legalsegrgation as as an example of how the court can reverse a decision. They ignore the act that the first decision said segregation could exist if facilities were equal. The decision.that outlawed segregation was based on the fact the facilities were not equal. The condition of the first decision were not met.

Darn it! I told them that all the facilities needed to have an equal number of toilets or there'd be hell to pay!