OT - A Purity Test for Republicans
Too_Many_Tools
I mean besides anal probing, waterboarding, shooting friends in the
face, choking on pretzels, foot tapping in bathroom stalls and seeing
Russia from your porch. ;<)
I notice that the Taliban would qualify as Republicans.
TMT
Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates
Tue Nov 24, 3:57 pm ET
Ten members of the Republican National Committee are proposing a
resolution demanding candidates embrace at least eight of 10
conservative principles if they hope to receive financial support and
an official endorsement from the RNC. The "Proposed RNC Resolution on
Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates," is designed to
force candidates to prove that they support "conservative principles"
while opposing "Obama's socialist agenda," according to The New York
Times' Caucus blog. The proposal highlights the ongoing tug-of-war for
the ideological soul of the Republican party, and has been met with
skepticism both inside and outside of the party.
Some are speculating that the move was inspired by the GOP’s recent
loss in New York's 23rd House race, a seat the party had held since
the 1800s. That contest saw Dede Scozzafava, a moderate Republican
endorsed by the RNC, driven out of the race in favor of Doug Hoffman,
a more conservative candidate backed by the likes of Glenn Beck and
Sarah Palin. After Scozzafava dropped out of the race, the RNC
endorsed Hoffman, who went on to lose to the Democratic candidate,
Bill Owens.
James Bopp Jr., an Indiana attorney, initiated the resolution, saying
that "conservatives have lost trust in the Republican party." Bopp
Jr., who floated a failed proposal earlier this year demanding that
Democrats rename their party the "Democrat Socialist Party," was
joined by 10 RNC co-sponsors. The group says they cited Ronald Reagan
in naming the resolution because the former president said that
"someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his
opponent." The ten guidelines, distributed to RNC members in recent
weeks, are as follows:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower
deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus"
bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style
government run healthcare;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade
legislation;
(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American
society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-
recommended troop surges;
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly
effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing
health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding
of abortion; and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government
restrictions on gun ownership;
(11) We support the right of every Republican to make an ass of
themselves...just checking to see if you are paying attention ;<).
Predictably, the proposed resolution has elicited derision from all
corners of the political spectrum, including the right wing. In
criticizing the proposal, conservative blogger Erick Erickson says
that Republicans "risk giving liberal candidates easy opportunities to
get conservative endorsements simply by checking the box without ever
meaning it," adding that the measure is essentially hollow because the
"GOP cannot live up to its own platform adopted at a national
convention, it sure as heck won’t live up to any pledge put forward by
a group of RNC committeemen."
Meanwhile, liberal blogger Steve Benen wonders if Reagan himself would
even pass the 80% threshold mandated by the resolution bearing his
name, noting that Reagan "voted for several tax increases, began the
modern era of massive federal debt, ran huge deficits, and approved an
immigration measure the far-right still resents."
However, not everyone finds fault with it. A Republican strategist and
former Bush White House official, who asked to remain anonymous, told
Yahoo! News that the resolution "bodes well" because "Republicans are
continuing to discuss policy positions and principles," adding "this
should not be treated as a purge document - as the media is portraying
it - but more of a document for discussion as Republicans attempt to
rebuild the party in 2010."
Despite the debate that it’s already inspired, whether or not the
resolution even gets voted on by the RNC's membership remains up in
the air. A spokeswoman for RNC Chairman Michael Steele told The Wall
Street Journal that until the deadline for submitting resolutions for
the party's winter meeting is reached, "we do not know what
resolutions will be submitted, nor what the final language of any
resolution ultimately submitted may be."
-- Brett Michael Dykes is a contributor to the Yahoo! News Blog
Wayne
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:52bc5db0-8adf-4080...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>Any suggestions?
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower
deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus"
bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style
government run healthcare;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade
legislation;
(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American
society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-
recommended troop surges;
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly
effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing
health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding
of abortion; and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government
restrictions on gun ownership;
*****************
-
Looks like ten very good points. I assume that you disagree with all ten?
Ed Huntress
"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hejrdf$oms$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
It looks like a letter to Santa Claus. <g>
They forgot Mom and apple pie. Most importantly, as with letters to Santa
Claus, they left out any mention of how they might achieve such things, if
they were given the responsibility to do so.
That's what makes it such fun to be in the opposition. You never have to do
anything. Just talk...
--
Ed Huntress
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
>
> (6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-
> recommended troop surges;
Define 'victory'.
Thanks,
Rich
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
>
> action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
How about, give them their Freedom by stopping trying to reform them in
our image?
Thanks,
Rich
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
>
What the fuck is the government doing in the marriage racket in the first
place?
Just quit discriminating against single people! The gays only want the
same tax breaks and other handouts that the breeders are getting.
Thanks,
Rich
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
>
> health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of
> abortion; and
There should be no "government funding" of ANYTHING.
Thanks,
Rich
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hejrdf$oms$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
>>Any suggestions?
>
> (6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-
> recommended troop surges;
>
> (7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective
> action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
>
> (8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
>
> (9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing
> health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of
> abortion; and
> -
> Looks like ten very good points. I assume that you disagree with all ten?
No, just the ones that advocate Mass Murder, [6], Crusades [7], Government
Endorsement of Religious Rituals [8], and denying Women the Right to
Ownership of their own bodies and the contents thereof [9].
Hope This Helps!
Rich
Stormin Mormon
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt,
lower
deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's
"stimulus"
bill;
I suggest a 10% across the board cut in funding of all
government programs. And eliminating, over three years,
any program not enumerated in the Constitution.
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose
Obama-style
government run healthcare;
I suggest repeal or revocation of most of the legislation
which forces medical people to practice defensive
medicine.
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap
and trade
legislation;
I support a 50% reduction in the rate of taxation of energy.
(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing
card check;
I support a return to mechanical voting machines.
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into
American
society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
I support a border fence, and also deporting illegals after
6 months of incarceration in Sherrif Joe's tent cities.
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by
supporting military-recommended troop surges;
And consider the military on the borders, with shoot
orders.
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea,
particularly
effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
Sounds good.
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
Would be nice.
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by
opposing
health care rationing and denial of health care and
government funding
of abortion; and
And the free market should set prices.
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing
government
restrictions on gun ownership;
Which is what the Constitution says.
Curly Surmudgeon
Precisely. The Republican Party has become the American Taliban.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Rudy, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Huntress
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hekair$ac1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >Any suggestions?
>
> (1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt,
> lower
> deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's
> "stimulus"
> bill;
>
> I suggest a 10% across the board cut in funding of all
> government programs. And eliminating, over three years,
> any program not enumerated in the Constitution.
<sigh> There goes the State and Tribal Underground Storage Tanks Program.
Not to mention the TSCA Title IV State Lead Grants Certification of
Lead-Based Paint Professionals program.
Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of
decency?
d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Wayne
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freed...@example.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11.25....@example.net...
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:01:17 -0800, Wayne wrote:
>>
>> (8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
>
> What the fuck is the government doing in the marriage racket in the first
> place?
>
marrying to whoever wants to do marriages.
BUT NOOOOOOO.....that would not be politically correct.
Poetic Justice
Funny how your own distortion and ignoring of the constitution ends up
biting you in the azz.
It is Poetic Justice.
HH&C
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:16:57 -0800, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
>
>
>
>
>
> <freedom_...@example.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:01:17 -0800, Wayne wrote:
>
> >>>Any suggestions?
>
> >> (6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-
> >> recommended troop surges;
>
> >> (7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly
> >> effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
>
> >> (8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
>
> >> (9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing
> >> health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding
> >> of abortion; and
> >> -
> >> Looks like ten very good points. I assume that you disagree with all
> >> ten?
>
> > No, just the ones that advocate Mass Murder, [6], Crusades [7],
> > Government Endorsement of Religious Rituals [8], and denying Women the
> > Right to Ownership of their own bodies and the contents thereof [9].
>
> > Hope This Helps!
> > Rich
>
> Precisely. The Republican Party has become the American Taliban.
And when your party starts forcing abortion on women for population
control?
"Soylent Green is People..."
> --
> Regards, Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2012 Run, Rudy, Run! 2012
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hawke
I was just thinking how long it would be before the crowd with the
pitchforks and torches was outside his house if he was ever able to get
his list implemented. The ideas of the "small government" guys sound
good until they try to do them. Then they quickly find out that
Americans don't really want small government. They want a government
that does things for them. Just try to take entitlements away from
Americans and watch what happens. Woe to the guy who takes away what we
think belongs to us. It's not pretty.
Hawke
Hawke
Why is it that right wingers all seem to think they are experts on the
Constitution and the Founding Fathers? I mean, most of them don't even
know that the word Constitution is supposed to be capitalized. If they
don't even know that...
Hawke
Ed Huntress
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hemn9i$dqu$1...@aioe.org...
As the man said at a teabagger rally last summer, "Keep the government's
hands off our Medicare!"
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
Do you still have the link to the Rea Bagger schmuck who didn't know the
difference between the Pledge of Allegiance and the Constitution?
That was a hoot.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:npCdndpRB7ThepPW...@giganews.com...
Eh, no, I don't have any of that stuff. It's probably archived somewhere, in
case anyone writes a book about the intellectual underpinnings of the
teabagger movement of 2009.
d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Klaus Schadenfreude
>Why is it that right wingers all seem to think they are experts on the
>Constitution and the Founding Fathers?
They probably assume the left doesn't know anything about it since
they can't even understand a simple sentence like the Second
Amendment. That's my guess.
>I mean, most of them don't even
>know that the word Constitution is supposed to be capitalized.
Ooooooooooooh! Speling flayme! You get 'em, tiger. [chuckle]
Ed Huntress
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4vstg5hnloegmj597...@4ax.com...
> In talk.politics.guns Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>>Why is it that right wingers all seem to think they are experts on the
>>Constitution and the Founding Fathers?
>
> They probably assume the left doesn't know anything about it since
> they can't even understand a simple sentence like the Second
> Amendment. That's my guess.
The Second Amendment is not a simple sentence. Most grammarians would call
it a complex sentence, with the nominative phrase functioning as an
adjectival.
It's known as a nominative absolute construction -- often called a
nominative absolute sentence -- containing a nominative phrase and an
independent clause. The nominative contains within it a participial phrase.
The relationship between the nominative phrase and the independent clause is
ambiguous without context, as are all nominative absolutes. And the Second
contains no context. It is a single-sentence paragraph that stands alone.
If you read the various Friend of the Court briefs for the Heller case heard
by the Supreme Court last year, you'll see various explanations by
grammarians. But what I've said above, although not explanatory, is
accurate.
You'll note that the S.C. did not determine that the Second specifically
enumerates an individual right to keep and bear arms. The right was
implicit, said the Court, and is one NOT ENUMERATED but understood in
historical context. The Court recognized, as most historians do today, that
the Second explicitly referred to concerns by the Anti-Federalists that the
federal government could co-opt and disband the state militias without
constitutional protection.
Next issue...
>
>
>>I mean, most of them don't even
>>know that the word Constitution is supposed to be capitalized.
>
> Ooooooooooooh! Speling flayme! You get 'em, tiger. [chuckle]
It's not supposed to be capitalized. Only if it's used as a proper noun
should it be capitalized. The United States has a constitution. It's
commonly called the United States Constitution, or, for short, the
Constitution. But you have to make clear that you're referring to one
specific constitution if you intend to capitalize it. Otherwise, it's a
common noun, which is not capitalized.
--
Ed Huntress
(an editor for 35 years, not usually this pedantic)
SaPeIsMa
Why are the left so stupidly smug to imagine that they may be better
educated than people on the right ?
You don't know enough people on the right to make stupid generalisations
about them
Stick to what you know best
Which is pretty simple, since it isn't that much
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:4vstg5hnloegmj597...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Why is it that right wingers all seem to think they are experts on the
>>>Constitution and the Founding Fathers?
>>
>> They probably assume the left doesn't know anything about it since
>> they can't even understand a simple sentence like the Second
>> Amendment. That's my guess.
>
>The Second Amendment is not a simple sentence.
Uh, yeah, it is.
Stormin Mormon
Not something a person would do at a tea party.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net>
wrote in message news:4b0ee646$0$22527$607e...@cv.net...
Stormin Mormon
male homosexuals) two different events.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net>
wrote in message news:4b0ef081$0$4995$607e...@cv.net...
Gunner Asch
Point, set and match!!
Its fascinating to note that how many Leftwingers think that Trotsky,
Lenin and Marx were there to sign the Constitution in 1787
Gunner
"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster
Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton
Ed Huntress
Uh, no, it's not. There is no ablative absolute in English. The closest
thing is the nominative absolute. But there is no explicit function for the
phrase in the nominative. Syntactically, it's not connected to the rest of
the sentence. But you can't have an unconnected dongle in standard English,
except as an interjection. Things function as other things, to complete the
structure. And functionally, the phrase is the equivalent of a subordinate
clause.
Without a subordinator ("because," in this case), English grammar doesn't
provide a syntactical connection between the phrase and the clause. There is
no actual subordinator here; you can't say that the clause ("the right of
the people to keep and bear...") is dependent upon the prefatory phrase.
But, functionally, the sentence works as if there were a subordinator. That
doesn't affect its meaning. It just gives the sentence a form. Without it,
it would have to be re-written as two sentences.
Thus, as I said, most grammarians who thought about it an analyzed it,
structurally, would agree that it functions as a complex sentence. You might
have to press them a bit with some tough questions about what *else* it
could be, but they would get it.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> Do you realize that "teabagging" is a homosexual act?
Nope. I don't hang out in those circles.
>
> Not something a person would do at a tea party.
Bitching and carrying insulting signs are not appropriate at tea parties,
either. d8-)
Ed Huntress
> Tea party (defenders of freedom) and teabaggers (practicing
> male homosexuals) two different events.
From the Urban Dictionary:
teabagger
multiple meanings. 1) one who carries large bags of packaged tea for
shipment. 2) a man that squats on top of a womens face and lowers his
genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" 3) one who has a
job or talent that is low in social status 4) a person who is unaware that
they have said or done something foolish, childlike, noobish, lame, or
inconvenient. 5) also see "fagbag", "lamer", "noob"
There. Is that better? You can choose the one you like best. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Hawke
You don't have any idea what you are talking about. I lived in Orange
County, Calif. for over 30 years. It's the most republican part of
California. I have known probably more republicans than you have. And
secondly, aside from business education the fact is people on the right
are less educated than those on the left. But that is only the kind of
things people in social science research would know. If you spent much
time in college, which I doubt you did, you would notice all the people
with the highest level education are liberals. I'm guessing that leaves
you out.
Hawke
Hawke
After that explanation it's clear that to a grammarian even the sentence
(Fuck you.) is a complicated one. The point being everyone knows what
it means even if they are an idiot. Everyone knew what the Second
Amendment meant from day one as well. But after the work of
"grammarians" and "lawyers" some people are not so sure anymore. So I
guess they can consider their job well done.
Hawke
Hawke
Now that's an American for you.
Hawke
Michael A. Terrell
"Soylent Green is liberals..."
--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
Ed Huntress
<g> I just don't want to go around and around on this, so I'm anticipating a
couple of arguments.
As for everyone knowing what the Second Amendment meant, I'm not so sure.
Why in the hell Madison used a nominative absolute is something that a lot
of people would love to ask him. It was known to be just as ambiguous in the
18th century as it is today. It was a literary device borrowed from the
Latin ablative absolute, and it was viewed as an elegant way to turn a
sentence. But it required context to accurately determine its meaning, and
the Second has no context.
Sometimes I think he just wrote something that anyone could read the way
they wanted to. The whole point was to satisfy the Anti-Federalists and to
get the whole thing ratified, after all.
That being said, Scalia and the Court tried, in Heller, to put themselves
into the *historical* context and read it that way. I think they got it
right. The Amendment was overtly about the militia but the individual right
was understood at the time. Thus, it says *the* right of the people. Madison
wasn't being cute; it's just that the right was indeed understood. And I
don't think that Scalia was just reaching for some vague implication in the
words. He was looking for the real understanding at the time it was written.
So I buy the conclusion that the Court reached in Heller.
But to say that it's a simple sentence that anyone should understand that
way today is a very stupid thing to say. It isn't "simple" in terms of
meaning or context, and it arguably isn't "simple" in grammatical terms.
--
Ed Huntress
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:7j5ug5l5ic32b1fpg...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4vstg5hnloegmj597...@4ax.com...
>>>> In talk.politics.guns Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Why is it that right wingers all seem to think they are experts on the
>>>>>Constitution and the Founding Fathers?
>>>>
>>>> They probably assume the left doesn't know anything about it since
>>>> they can't even understand a simple sentence like the Second
>>>> Amendment. That's my guess.
>>>
>>>The Second Amendment is not a simple sentence.
>>
>> Uh, yeah, it is.
>
>Uh, no, it's not.
Uh, yeah it is. Only the pseudo-intellectual left seems to have
trouble understanding it.
Gunner Asch
Indeed. Its not very complex and only has two parts.
Yet the "smart left"...snicker..is totally unable to comprehend it.
As Mr Ed so pitifully demonstrates
Ed Huntress
If you're sure you know what it means, you don't.
--
Ed Huntress
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:otgvg55alknbehv5m...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:7j5ug5l5ic32b1fpg...@4ax.com...
>>>> In talk.politics.guns "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:4vstg5hnloegmj597...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> In talk.politics.guns Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why is it that right wingers all seem to think they are experts on the
>>>>>>>Constitution and the Founding Fathers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They probably assume the left doesn't know anything about it since
>>>>>> they can't even understand a simple sentence like the Second
>>>>>> Amendment. That's my guess.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Second Amendment is not a simple sentence.
>>>>
>>>> Uh, yeah, it is.
>>>
>>>Uh, no, it's not.
>>
>> Uh, yeah it is. Only the pseudo-intellectual left seems to have
>> trouble understanding it.
>
>If you're sure you know what it means, you don't.
I'm absolutely certain what it means. It's so simple a child could
understand it.
It's just a simple sentence, not a political football.
Ed Huntress
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:5fjvg5hrs713368os...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:19:39 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>In talk.politics.guns "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:7j5ug5l5ic32b1fpg...@4ax.com...
>>>> In talk.politics.guns "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:4vstg5hnloegmj597...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> In talk.politics.guns Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why is it that right wingers all seem to think they are experts on
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>Constitution and the Founding Fathers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They probably assume the left doesn't know anything about it since
>>>>>> they can't even understand a simple sentence like the Second
>>>>>> Amendment. That's my guess.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Second Amendment is not a simple sentence.
>>>>
>>>> Uh, yeah, it is.
>>>
>>>Uh, no, it's not.
>>
>>Uh, yeah it is. Only the pseudo-intellectual left seems to have
>>trouble understanding it.
>
> Indeed. Its not very complex and only has two parts.
>
> Yet the "smart left"...snicker..is totally unable to comprehend it.
>
> As Mr Ed so pitifully demonstrates
>
>
> Gunner
And as for the two parts, the question is what is the RELATIONSHIP between
them?
In his dissent to the D.C. v Heller case, Justice Stevens makes the point
that you can't ignore any part of a sentence in the Constitution, and he
makes a strong case that the militia phrase (which lawyers call a "clause,"
but grammarians do not) explains the context and limits the application of
the independent clause.
Scalia disagrees, and, in the Court's opinion, makes the case that the
prefatory phrase describes a sufficient, but not necessary reason for the
right described in the clause. I agree with him. His argument is almost
exactly the same as the one I've made against the anti-RKBA side for over 20
years.
Scalia takes about 20 pages to justify his point. It's not simple.
Interpreting the relationship between the clause and the phrase hinges on a
lot of legal precedent and historical context. But it's a strong argument,
and I believe it's the right one.
You'll note that a strong originalist, such as Robert Bork, agrees with
Stevens and denies the individual RKBA. If you knew anything about the
Constitution, you'd know that Bork and the "originalist" position you so
frequently defend is exactly right -- within the context of originalism. So
your position, like mine, is against an originalist interpretation. Ironic,
huh? You so frequently defend the "original meaning" of the Constitution,
but the strongest and most conservative Constitutional originalist alive
today, Robert Bork, concludes that there is NO individual right to keep and
bear arms. And he's right. If you're an originalist, that is. <g>
As I said to Klaus, if you think you understand the Second Amendment and
you're dead sure about what it means, you surely don't. It's arguable either
way, although one argument has to win in the end. That's why the Supreme
Court has diddled with it for over 100 years, without coming down clearly on
one side or the other until the Heller case.
And based on what you've said about the original intent of the Second being
an individual right that precludes the states from interfering with it, when
we talked about it some years ago and you produced the Barron v. Baltimore
case to "prove" that the 2nd confers a right over the heads of the states --
when the Barron case actually does the exact opposite -- tells us that you'd
do better to confine your judgment of what is "pitiful" to machine tools and
handloading. d8-)
The meaning of the Second Amendment only looks simple to the simple-minded.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
As I said to Gunner, it only looks simple to the simple-minded.
>
> It's just a simple sentence, not a political football.
If you think that a nominative absolute sentence is simple, then you don't
understand the problem. This must leave you very frustrated that the Court
took over 100 years and several cases to come out clearly on the issue of
the individual right. You probably think you're smarter than all of those
Justices. But the fact is, all you're telling us is that you haven't a clue.
--
Ed Huntress
Klaus Schadenfreude
As I said to you, only the pseudo-intellectual left seems to have
trouble understanding it.
>> It's just a simple sentence, not a political football.
>
>If you think that a nominative absolute sentence is simple, then you don't
>understand the problem.
I understand the problem. It's yours.
Ed Huntress
And what that means is that someone who has spent his professional life
editing English, and who has made a major avocation and some academic work
studying the US Constitution and constitutional law, is likely to have an
explanation about why the Court has struggled with this Amendment for over
100 years, and why it has generated reams of study on both sides...while all
the while, in your simple way, you understood it perfectly all along, and
you can't understand why all of those learned Justices just never got it.
d8-)
>
>
>>> It's just a simple sentence, not a political football.
>>
>>If you think that a nominative absolute sentence is simple, then you don't
>>understand the problem.
>
> I understand the problem. It's yours.
Your argument is the same one that Gunner and others have made here many
times: argument from personal conviction, a variety of argumentum ad
ignorantium: You believe it because you think you know, and therefore it's
correct.
In other words, you believe it because you want to believe it. But you have
no reason to believe one way or the other that the nominative phrase was
intended to describe the necessary condition, or if it's just a sufficient
condition, an example of why the clause is valid for all cases.
Nominatives can go either way. That's the basis of Justice Stevens'
argument, and he has plenty of evidence to draw upon. I just happen to think
that Scalia's argument is stronger. And he has the history on his side.
Unfortunately, that's not an acceptable argument for the originalists.
Fortunately, only Thomas is an originalist on the Court today, and he's too
intellectually wobbly to be much of a problem. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Klaus Schadenfreude
I understand why they never got it, just like I understand why you
don't get it. There are lots of people who do get it- far more than
those that don't.
Just because there are some for whom the statement is puzzling-- like
yourself, apparently-- doesn't mean it's not a simple, clear
statement.
Hell, we had a President trying to cloud the definition of "is" a
while back, IIRC.
>>>> It's just a simple sentence, not a political football.
>>>
>>>If you think that a nominative absolute sentence is simple, then you don't
>>>understand the problem.
>>
>> I understand the problem. It's yours.
>
>Your argument is the same one that Gunner and others have made here many
>times: argument from personal conviction, a variety of argumentum ad
>ignorantium: You believe it because you think you know, and therefore it's
>correct.
I don't think I know what it means. I do know what it means. So do
most normal, rational people.
Ed Huntress
Aha. So you're a psychologist, too, herr doktor? You have a good name for
it. d8-)
> There are lots of people who do get it- far more than
> those that don't.
There are lots of people who agree that the Court got it right. But most
have no idea why.
>
> Just because there are some for whom the statement is puzzling-- like
> yourself, apparently-- doesn't mean it's not a simple, clear
> statement.
Those who think it's simple and clear just don't get it.
>
> Hell, we had a President trying to cloud the definition of "is" a
> while back, IIRC.
Most of us know what "is" means. Not many know what the 2nd was all about,
or why strict originalists, like Robert Bork, believe that it does NOT
support an individual right. What do you suppose Bork's problem is, if
you're right and he's wrong?
>
>
>>>>> It's just a simple sentence, not a political football.
>>>>
>>>>If you think that a nominative absolute sentence is simple, then you
>>>>don't
>>>>understand the problem.
>>>
>>> I understand the problem. It's yours.
>>
>>Your argument is the same one that Gunner and others have made here many
>>times: argument from personal conviction, a variety of argumentum ad
>>ignorantium: You believe it because you think you know, and therefore it's
>>correct.
>
> I don't think I know what it means. I do know what it means. So do
> most normal, rational people.
You think you know what it means because you want to believe that it means
what you think. People on the other side of the fence think the same thing,
only they believe the opposite of what you think it means. Either one of you
could be right, or neither could be right.
The fact is, neither of you is right.
--
Ed Huntress
Klaus Schadenfreude
>Aha. So you're a psychologist, too, herr doktor? You have a good name for
>it. d8-)
Why not? You claim to be a mind reader, knowing what I know and
understand.
>> There are lots of people who do get it- far more than
>> those that don't.
>
>There are lots of people who agree that the Court got it right. But most
>have no idea why.
Cite that most have no idea why.
Regardless, that's not my problem, since I understand it.
>> Just because there are some for whom the statement is puzzling-- like
>> yourself, apparently-- doesn't mean it's not a simple, clear
>> statement.
>
>Those who think it's simple and clear just don't get it.
Maybe you're just jealous?
>>
>> Hell, we had a President trying to cloud the definition of "is" a
>> while back, IIRC.
>
>Most of us know what "is" means.
Yet there was a great discussion about it, just like there is by the
pseudo-intellectuals of the left about the 2A.
Ed Huntress
> In talk.politics.guns "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>Aha. So you're a psychologist, too, herr doktor? You have a good name for
>>it. d8-)
>
> Why not? You claim to be a mind reader, knowing what I know and
> understand.
>
>
>>> There are lots of people who do get it- far more than
>>> those that don't.
>>
>>There are lots of people who agree that the Court got it right. But most
>>have no idea why.
>
> Cite that most have no idea why.
Cite? Cripes. See how many can explain the 1st Amendment, for that matter.
>
> Regardless, that's not my problem, since I understand it.
Good for you. We've seen no evidence of it here, but maybe you're holding
out on us. d8-)
>
>
>>> Just because there are some for whom the statement is puzzling-- like
>>> yourself, apparently-- doesn't mean it's not a simple, clear
>>> statement.
>>
>>Those who think it's simple and clear just don't get it.
>
> Maybe you're just jealous?
Sometimes the attractions of being clueless look appealing. Life must be so
much simpler when you know the meaning of everything. Monkfish, for example.
Did you ever see one? Why do they have to be so ugly?
And dog ticks. Why? I mean, really, come on...what for? <g>
>
>>>
>>> Hell, we had a President trying to cloud the definition of "is" a
>>> while back, IIRC.
>>
>>Most of us know what "is" means.
>
> Yet there was a great discussion about it, just like there is by the
> pseudo-intellectuals of the left about the 2A.
Whatever discussion there was about the meaning of "is," I doubt if it was
great. It probably was like listening to a couple of guys at a bar, talking
about how stupid all those Supreme Court Justices are.
--
Ed Huntress
Sid Vicious
Including you!
>>Just because there are some for whom the statement is puzzling-- like
>>yourself, apparently-- doesn't mean it's not a simple, clear
>>statement.
>
>
> Those who think it's simple and clear just don't get it.
The only people that don't understand it are retarded muffin heads like you.
Sid Vicious
> Sometimes the attractions of being clueless look appealing.
And you look pretty... to yourself.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1nuvg5lv03cadag8e...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Aha. So you're a psychologist, too, herr doktor? You have a good name for
>>>it. d8-)
>>
>> Why not? You claim to be a mind reader, knowing what I know and
>> understand.
>>
>>
>>>> There are lots of people who do get it- far more than
>>>> those that don't.
>>>
>>>There are lots of people who agree that the Court got it right. But most
>>>have no idea why.
>>
>> Cite that most have no idea why.
>
>Cite?
Right. Cite that most people have no idea why they agree that the
court got it right.
>> Regardless, that's not my problem, since I understand it.
>
>Good for you. We've seen no evidence of it here, but maybe you're holding
>out on us. d8-)
It really doesn't matter what you've seen or not seen.
>>>> Just because there are some for whom the statement is puzzling-- like
>>>> yourself, apparently-- doesn't mean it's not a simple, clear
>>>> statement.
>>>
>>>Those who think it's simple and clear just don't get it.
>>
>> Maybe you're just jealous?
>
>Sometimes the attractions of being clueless look appealing.
Then you must be incredibly happy.
> Life must be so
>much simpler when you know the meaning of everything.
I never claimed to know the meaning of everything. Maybe your trouble
with the English language extends to your confusion about the 2a.
>Whatever discussion there was about the meaning of "is," I doubt if it was
>great. It probably was like listening to a couple of guys at a bar, talking
>about how stupid all those Supreme Court Justices are.
If you're as ignorant about that as you are about the 2A, that
explains your problem.
Ed Huntress
> In talk.politics.guns "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1nuvg5lv03cadag8e...@4ax.com...
>>> In talk.politics.guns "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Aha. So you're a psychologist, too, herr doktor? You have a good name
>>>>for
>>>>it. d8-)
>>>
>>> Why not? You claim to be a mind reader, knowing what I know and
>>> understand.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> There are lots of people who do get it- far more than
>>>>> those that don't.
>>>>
>>>>There are lots of people who agree that the Court got it right. But most
>>>>have no idea why.
>>>
>>> Cite that most have no idea why.
>>
>>Cite?
>
> Right. Cite that most people have no idea why they agree that the
> court got it right.
It's not why they agree. The question is what the Court said that they agree
with. Many know that Heller won. But what did he win? And what did the Court
say is his right? It's not to keep and bear arms.
>
>
>>> Regardless, that's not my problem, since I understand it.
>>
>>Good for you. We've seen no evidence of it here, but maybe you're holding
>>out on us. d8-)
>
>
> It really doesn't matter what you've seen or not seen.
Well, in a sense, that's correct. Nothing will come of it. But that still
doesn't mean you actually understand it.
>
>
>>>>> Just because there are some for whom the statement is puzzling-- like
>>>>> yourself, apparently-- doesn't mean it's not a simple, clear
>>>>> statement.
>>>>
>>>>Those who think it's simple and clear just don't get it.
>>>
>>> Maybe you're just jealous?
>>
>>Sometimes the attractions of being clueless look appealing.
>
> Then you must be incredibly happy.
Not nearly as happy as you, Klaus.
>
>> Life must be so
>>much simpler when you know the meaning of everything.
>
> I never claimed to know the meaning of everything. Maybe your trouble
> with the English language extends to your confusion about the 2a.
I have little trouble with the English language.
>
>>Whatever discussion there was about the meaning of "is," I doubt if it was
>>great. It probably was like listening to a couple of guys at a bar,
>>talking
>>about how stupid all those Supreme Court Justices are.
>
> If you're as ignorant about that as you are about the 2A, that
> explains your problem.
Ignorant about what? You need to identify the antecedent you're referring
to.
--
Ed Huntress
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:vjvvg5hesfq07dfhn...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1nuvg5lv03cadag8e...@4ax.com...
>>>> In talk.politics.guns "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Aha. So you're a psychologist, too, herr doktor? You have a good name
>>>>>for
>>>>>it. d8-)
>>>>
>>>> Why not? You claim to be a mind reader, knowing what I know and
>>>> understand.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> There are lots of people who do get it- far more than
>>>>>> those that don't.
>>>>>
>>>>>There are lots of people who agree that the Court got it right. But most
>>>>>have no idea why.
>>>>
>>>> Cite that most have no idea why.
>>>
>>>Cite?
>>
>> Right. Cite that most people have no idea why they agree that the
>> court got it right.
>
>It's not why they agree.
But that's what you wrote. You really DO have a lot of trouble with
simple English sentences, don't you?
>The question is what the Court said that they agree
>with. Many know that Heller won. But what did he win? And what did the Court
>say is his right? It's not to keep and bear arms.
You made the claim that most people have no idea why they agree that
the court got it right.
Now you're backing off that claim. Hmmmmm.
Yeah, I *know* why you don't understand the 2A. [chuckle]
>>>> Regardless, that's not my problem, since I understand it.
>>>
>>>Good for you. We've seen no evidence of it here, but maybe you're holding
>>>out on us. d8-)
>>
>>
>> It really doesn't matter what you've seen or not seen.
>
>Well, in a sense, that's correct. Nothing will come of it. But that still
>doesn't mean you actually understand it.
It doesn't mean I don't, either. And there is a great deal of
certainty- especially given your misunderstandings and fuckups above-
that your understanding doesn't come close to mine.
>>>>>> Just because there are some for whom the statement is puzzling-- like
>>>>>> yourself, apparently-- doesn't mean it's not a simple, clear
>>>>>> statement.
>>>>>
>>>>>Those who think it's simple and clear just don't get it.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you're just jealous?
>>>
>>>Sometimes the attractions of being clueless look appealing.
>>
>> Then you must be incredibly happy.
>
>Not nearly as happy as you, Klaus.
No, I think you're just absolutely delirious. In more ways than one.
>>> Life must be so
>>>much simpler when you know the meaning of everything.
>>
>> I never claimed to know the meaning of everything. Maybe your trouble
>> with the English language extends to your confusion about the 2a.
>
>I have little trouble with the English language.
[chuckle] So you're a liar, too.
Gray Ghost
$607e...@cv.net:
> Those who think it's simple and clear just don't get it.
>
Actually my understanding is it was written so that the majority of persons
in the newly formed country could read and understand it.
I am always suspicious of those who want to take something fairly basic and
simple and dress it up in complications that only they understand. Seems a
good way to simply exclude the great unwashed from the conversation.
Interestingly enough thise that want to complicate the Second amendment
ususally aren't to hot on the others too, taking a view that governemtn can
generally do what it likes if it can buy enough votes. No moral basis, no
historical basis, just expience.
And armed citizens are clearly a threat to the view that government is in
charge, if only a symbolic threat.
Sorry Ed, your inability to understand a simple turn of phrase in no way
validates your position. And Bork's interpetation, if accurately reproduced
by you would make me call into question his entire process and make ne happy
he was Borked.
--
�Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel
of envy, its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery.� Winston
Churchill
Stuart Wheaton
>> In talk.politics.guns Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Why is it that right wingers all seem to think they are experts on the
>>> Constitution and the Founding Fathers?
>> They probably assume the left doesn't know anything about it since
>> they can't even understand a simple sentence like the Second
>> Amendment. That's my guess.
>
> it a complex sentence, with the nominative phrase functioning as an
> adjectival.
That may all be true Ed, but it is almost impossible (without creating
some astonishing linguistic gymnastics and ignoring other well
understood phrases in the same document) to separate the word "right"
from the word "People"
>
> It's known as a nominative absolute construction -- often called a
> nominative absolute sentence -- containing a nominative phrase and an
> independent clause. The nominative contains within it a participial phrase.
>
> The relationship between the nominative phrase and the independent clause is
> ambiguous without context, as are all nominative absolutes. And the Second
> contains no context. It is a single-sentence paragraph that stands alone.
>
> If you read the various Friend of the Court briefs for the Heller case heard
> by the Supreme Court last year, you'll see various explanations by
> grammarians. But what I've said above, although not explanatory, is
> accurate.
>
> You'll note that the S.C. did not determine that the Second specifically
> enumerates an individual right to keep and bear arms. The right was
> implicit, said the Court, and is one NOT ENUMERATED but understood in
> historical context. The Court recognized, as most historians do today, that
> the Second explicitly referred to concerns by the Anti-Federalists that the
> federal government could co-opt and disband the state militias without
> constitutional protection.
>
> Next issue...
>
>>
>>> I mean, most of them don't even
>>> know that the word Constitution is supposed to be capitalized.
>> Ooooooooooooh! Speling flayme! You get 'em, tiger. [chuckle]
>
> It's not supposed to be capitalized. Only if it's used as a proper noun
> should it be capitalized. The United States has a constitution. It's
> commonly called the United States Constitution, or, for short, the
> Constitution. But you have to make clear that you're referring to one
> specific constitution if you intend to capitalize it. Otherwise, it's a
> common noun, which is not capitalized.
>
Ed Huntress
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CD077EAE7659We...@216.196.97.142...
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in news:4b0ff9c0$0$31272
> $607e...@cv.net:
>
>> Those who think it's simple and clear just don't get it.
>>
>
> Actually my understanding is it was written so that the majority of
> persons
> in the newly formed country could read and understand it.
That's an assertion that's declared in many Supreme Court decisions, but
it's often an iffy one. If it's so clear, why has the S.C. had to make so
many decisions about what the Constitution means, and why is there so much
disagreement among the Justices? And why are cases overturned on the meaning
and/or intent of the original?
It's a nice theory, but a tricky case like the Second puts it to the test.
The language of the Constitution is general, often vague, and sometimes
ambiguous. That's one reason our Constitution has survived so long: It's a
kind of Rorschach test, and people see in it what they want to see. Like
Klaus. <g>
>
> I am always suspicious of those who want to take something fairly basic
> and
> simple and dress it up in complications that only they understand. Seems a
> good way to simply exclude the great unwashed from the conversation.
Well, I am, too. But this isn't a simple and basic thing. For example, do
you know why the real originalists, like Bork, believe that the Second does
not confer an individual right? Until you understand the basis of their
argument, it's easy to think that things are really simple.
They're not. Some of it has to do with being consistent in your method,
across different decisions on different issues. Scalia may have dug himself
a bit of a hole, for example, with the way he's always disparaged the
"substantive due process" decisions regarding incorporation of various
decisions under the 14th. Now he's facing another Second Amendment case,
this time one involving incorporation, and it's almost a given that the
Court will incorporate the Heller decision.
But how, now that the conservatives are on record against the rationale for
doing so? We're going to see some pretty wild activism here, by my guess.
The Court may have to overturn the Slaughterhouse cases in order to find a
way to incorporate the Second Amendment without "substantive due process,"
so that it applies to the states as well as to the feds. That's a big
overturning -- not that Scalia isn't egotistical enough, and arrogant
enough, to do it. (And not that he would be wrong in doing so, IMO.)
Conservatives don't like to break precedent when there have been so many
cases decided on the basis of the prior decision. So this one is going to
cause some fur to fly. Yet, on the surface, it looks like it should be a
slam-dunk.
>
> Interestingly enough thise that want to complicate the Second amendment
> ususally aren't to hot on the others too, taking a view that governemtn
> can
> generally do what it likes if it can buy enough votes. No moral basis, no
> historical basis, just expience.
I think you're overreaching here. People who study the Constitution in a
serious way recognize that the Second, along with most other provisions of
the Constitution, is a complicated issue *when viewed in the broad context
of other decisions*. That doesn't mean they oppose the RKBA, nor that they
would diminish the Constitution in any way. Often, it just means that they
love it enough that they want to get it right and to be as consistent as
possible; people like me, for instance.
>
> And armed citizens are clearly a threat to the view that government is in
> charge, if only a symbolic threat.
Largely irrelevant to the argument. You're assuming motivation on the part
of the Justices. If you do that, you have to look at motivations on both
sides.
>
> Sorry Ed, your inability to understand a simple turn of phrase in no way
> validates your position. And Bork's interpetation, if accurately
> reproduced
> by you would make me call into question his entire process and make ne
> happy
> he was Borked.
If you question what I said about Bork's opinion, you'd be much more
believable if you actually looked it up, rather than speculating. Because
your speculation is coming from the same source as your conclusion, which is
argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Look it up. Enlighten yourself. And get into the argument enough to
recognize what the problem is with the Second. You'll wind up a lot more
knowledgable than the people who think it's all so simple, and you'll even
see why "originalism" is a crippled philosophy for dealing with the
Constitution. It might take some of the certitude out of your conviction,
but you'd have a better understanding about why such things are argued
before the Court, and why textual decisions rarely result in uniform Court
opinions.
As for the Second being a "simple turn of phrase," don't try that remark on
people who know what they're talking about -- and that includes serious
students of the Constitution on either side of the issue.
Here's the acid test, Ghost: See if you can learn why hard-core originalists
like Bork oppose the RKBA. If you understand that, you're on your way to
recognizing what's made the Second such a contentious issue among Justices
and legal scholars for so long -- and why it's not as simple as you seem to
think.
--
Ed Huntress
Sid Vicious
> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CD077EAE7659We...@216.196.97.142...
>
>>"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in news:4b0ff9c0$0$31272
>>$607e...@cv.net:
>>
>>
>>>Those who think it's simple and clear just don't get it.
>>>
>>
>>Actually my understanding is it was written so that the majority of
>>persons
>>in the newly formed country could read and understand it.
>
>
> That's an assertion that's declared in many Supreme Court decisions, but
> it's often an iffy one.
I understand it.
Why don't you?
Sid Vicious
One also has to wonder what "Ed Huntress" knows about the actual craft
of working metal.
RD (The Sandman)
>
> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vjvvg5hesfq07dfhn...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1nuvg5lv03cadag8e...@4ax.com...
>>>> In talk.politics.guns "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Aha. So you're a psychologist, too, herr doktor? You have a good
>>>>>name for
>>>>>it. d8-)
>>>>
>>>> Why not? You claim to be a mind reader, knowing what I know and
>>>> understand.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> There are lots of people who do get it- far more than
>>>>>> those that don't.
>>>>>
>>>>>There are lots of people who agree that the Court got it right. But
>>>>>most have no idea why.
>>>>
>>>> Cite that most have no idea why.
>>>
>>>Cite?
>>
>> Right. Cite that most people have no idea why they agree that the
>> court got it right.
>
> It's not why they agree. The question is what the Court said that they
> agree with. Many know that Heller won. But what did he win? And what
> did the Court say is his right? It's not to keep and bear arms.
It was two things. One that the right to keep and bear arms is an
individual right with no requirement for militia involvement and, two,
that the District cannot prohibit him from owning and registering a
handgun for self defense in his home.
What do you think came out of Heller?
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns9CD077EAE7659We...@216.196.97.142...
>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in news:4b0ff9c0$0$31272
>> $607e...@cv.net:
>>
>>> Those who think it's simple and clear just don't get it.
>>>
>>
>> Actually my understanding is it was written so that the majority of
>> persons
>> in the newly formed country could read and understand it.
>
>That's an assertion that's declared in many Supreme Court decisions, but
>it's often an iffy one. If it's so clear, why has the S.C. had to make so
>many decisions about what the Constitution means, and why is there so much
>disagreement among the Justices?
Simple. Leftist twits.
RD (The Sandman)
>
> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CD077EAE7659We...@216.196.97.142...
>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
>> news:4b0ff9c0$0$31272 $607e...@cv.net:
>>
>>> Those who think it's simple and clear just don't get it.
>>>
>>
>> Actually my understanding is it was written so that the majority of
>> persons
>> in the newly formed country could read and understand it.
>
> That's an assertion that's declared in many Supreme Court decisions,
> but it's often an iffy one. If it's so clear, why has the S.C. had to
> make so many decisions about what the Constitution means, and why is
> there so much disagreement among the Justices?
Politics......pure and simple.
> And why are cases
> overturned on the meaning and/or intent of the original?
>
> It's a nice theory, but a tricky case like the Second puts it to the
> test. The language of the Constitution is general, often vague, and
> sometimes ambiguous. That's one reason our Constitution has survived
> so long: It's a kind of Rorschach test, and people see in it what they
> want to see. Like Klaus. <g>
I don't know "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." seems
pretty clear to me. Of course, it may not to you. Even the Supreme
Court ignores the prefatory clause most of the time.
>> I am always suspicious of those who want to take something fairly
>> basic and
>> simple and dress it up in complications that only they understand.
>> Seems a good way to simply exclude the great unwashed from the
>> conversation.
>
> Well, I am, too. But this isn't a simple and basic thing. For example,
> do you know why the real originalists, like Bork, believe that the
> Second does not confer an individual right?
You haven't shown that yet. Besides, the majority of scholars on that
subject disagree that it is a collective right.
> Until you understand the
> basis of their argument, it's easy to think that things are really
> simple.
They are until some folks try to make them not so.
> They're not. Some of it has to do with being consistent in your
> method, across different decisions on different issues. Scalia may
> have dug himself a bit of a hole, for example, with the way he's
> always disparaged the "substantive due process" decisions regarding
> incorporation of various decisions under the 14th. Now he's facing
> another Second Amendment case, this time one involving incorporation,
> and it's almost a given that the Court will incorporate the Heller
> decision.
Yep.
> But how, now that the conservatives are on record against the
> rationale for doing so? We're going to see some pretty wild activism
> here, by my guess. The Court may have to overturn the Slaughterhouse
> cases in order to find a way to incorporate the Second Amendment
> without "substantive due process," so that it applies to the states as
> well as to the feds. That's a big overturning -- not that Scalia isn't
> egotistical enough, and arrogant enough, to do it. (And not that he
> would be wrong in doing so, IMO.)
Which portion of the Slaughterhouse cases do you think needs to be
overturned for the Second Amendment? There are three ways for 14th
Amendment recognition. The privileges and Immunities clause is only one
of them. It is the basis for the ruling. The other two ways are due
process and equal protections. McDonald raises one of those and Nordyke
(whose attorney is presenting) makes the other one. It will be
interesting.
FWIW, the case that directly addressed the Second Amendment was us v
Cruikshank, three years later.
> Conservatives don't like to break precedent when there have been so
> many cases decided on the basis of the prior decision. So this one is
> going to cause some fur to fly. Yet, on the surface, it looks like it
> should be a slam-dunk.
It will depend on which of the three legs it ends up standing on.
>> Interestingly enough thise that want to complicate the Second
>> amendment ususally aren't to hot on the others too, taking a view
>> that governemtn can
>> generally do what it likes if it can buy enough votes. No moral
>> basis, no historical basis, just expience.
>
> I think you're overreaching here. People who study the Constitution in
> a serious way recognize that the Second, along with most other
> provisions of the Constitution, is a complicated issue *when viewed in
> the broad context of other decisions*. That doesn't mean they oppose
> the RKBA, nor that they would diminish the Constitution in any way.
> Often, it just means that they love it enough that they want to get it
> right and to be as consistent as possible; people like me, for
> instance.
And just how would you like to see it applied or not?
>> And armed citizens are clearly a threat to the view that government
>> is in charge, if only a symbolic threat.
>
> Largely irrelevant to the argument. You're assuming motivation on the
> part of the Justices. If you do that, you have to look at motivations
> on both sides.
>
>>
>> Sorry Ed, your inability to understand a simple turn of phrase in no
>> way validates your position. And Bork's interpetation, if accurately
>> reproduced
>> by you would make me call into question his entire process and make
>> ne happy
>> he was Borked.
>
> If you question what I said about Bork's opinion, you'd be much more
> believable if you actually looked it up, rather than speculating.
> Because your speculation is coming from the same source as your
> conclusion, which is argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Bork doesn't agree with the NRA's position that the 2A guarantees you any
firearm, anytime with few restrictions. He feels that it is a militia
amendment. I agree with him on that since I hold the right to keep and
bear arms as being separate from the militia involvement....as does the
Supreme Court in Heller.
> Look it up. Enlighten yourself. And get into the argument enough to
> recognize what the problem is with the Second. You'll wind up a lot
> more knowledgable than the people who think it's all so simple, and
> you'll even see why "originalism" is a crippled philosophy for dealing
> with the Constitution. It might take some of the certitude out of your
> conviction, but you'd have a better understanding about why such
> things are argued before the Court, and why textual decisions rarely
> result in uniform Court opinions.
>
> As for the Second being a "simple turn of phrase," don't try that
> remark on people who know what they're talking about -- and that
> includes serious students of the Constitution on either side of the
> issue.
>
> Here's the acid test, Ghost: See if you can learn why hard-core
> originalists like Bork oppose the RKBA.
You will have to show where Bork stated he opposed the RKBA. I see where
he attachs the 2A to the militia but RKBA is a separate issue.
If you understand that, you're
> on your way to recognizing what's made the Second such a contentious
> issue among Justices and legal scholars for so long -- and why it's
> not as simple as you seem to think.
Too many folks keep trying to tie the 2A to RKBA which it only does to
provide protection to that right for the purposes of protecting the
militia. For RKBA itself, look to the 9A.
Gunner Asch
"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."
http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/regulate.html
Let me give two examples of usage of the word "regulate" which have
been in existence for quite a long time and which have the same
"properly operating" interpretation.
1) Horology: The adjustment of a portable timepiece so it will keep
time in the different positions in which it may be carried and kept (and
perhaps at the different temperatures which it may encounter.) A
(mechanical) wrist-watch which has been so designed and adjusted is said
to be "regulated" and likely has this word stamped or engraved on its
back-plate.
2)Firearms: The adjustment of a multi-barrel firearm (e.g., a double
barrelled shotgun) so that the barrels shoot to the same point-of-aim.
If such a gun (a double-barrelled shotgun or a three barreled
"drilling")
fails to shoot properly, it is considered to be "out of regulation" and
needs to be "re-regulated".
Both of these uses have meanings *related* to the "to rule" of
man-made laws, but are more in the nature of "to adjust to or to be in
a state of proper functioning". So a "well regulated watch" or a "well
regulated double barreled shotgun" both would have meaning of "having
been put into properly functioning condition".
From my reading of material from the colonial era, I have come to
understand that "well regulated militia" had a meaning at that time
(ca. 1789) in the nature of "a properly functioning militia" - which
would mean something along the lines of a properly trained and equipped
militia (since it was common at that time for militiamen to bring their
own firearms, with which they were already proficient.)
The language of the NC Legislature in 1789 strengthens this
interpretation. What can "well regulated Governments" mean other
than "properly functioning Governments"? Surely it didn't and
couldn't refer to a government under the control of man-made laws, for
it is the government itself which makes these laws, and it would neither
be noble nor sensible for the Legislature to be proclaiming that it is
controlling itself.
An additional contemporaneous document which exhibits the same
meaning is the Federalist Paper #29, in which Hamilton is discussing
the composition of the militia and says, "To oblige the great body of
the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under
arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and
evolutions, as often as might be necessary to_acquire_the_degree_of_
perfection_which_would_entitle_them_to_the_character_of_a_
well-regulated_militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a
serious public inconvenience and loss." (emphasis added)
Note that "well-regulated" clearly refers to how well the militia
functions and how well trained are the militia members. It does not
refer at all to the degree to which the government controls the militia
or the members of the militia.
This interpretation is also borne out by some old or obsolete
definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Regulated" has an
Obsolete definition (b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and then
"discipline" has a definition (3b) applying to the military, "Training
in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more
widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill
and experience; the art of war."
One fails to understand what Edtard finds complex or complicated about
that simple 2nd Amendment.
Michael A. Terrell
Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> Indeed. Its not very complex and only has two parts.
>
> Yet the "smart left"...snicker..is totally unable to comprehend it.
>
> As Mr Ed so pitifully demonstrates
"Mr. Ed" was better at playing a talking horse, than he is as a
Usenet troll...
--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
rangerssuck
> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7klvg5d772psc20if...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > In talk.politics.guns "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:otgvg55alknbehv5m...@4ax.com...
> >>> In talk.politics.guns "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:7j5ug5l5ic32b1fpg...@4ax.com...
> >>>>> In talk.politics.guns "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:4vstg5hnloegmj597...@4ax.com...
> >>>>>>> In talk.politics.guns Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>Why is it that right wingers all seem to think they are experts on
> >>>>>>>>the
> >>>>>>>>Constitution and the Founding Fathers?
>
> >>>>>>> They probably assume the left doesn't know anything about it since
> >>>>>>> they can't even understand a simple sentence like the Second
> >>>>>>> Amendment. That's my guess.
>
> >>>>>>The Second Amendment is not a simple sentence.
>
> >>>>> Uh, yeah, it is.
>
> >>>>Uh, no, it's not.
>
> >>> Uh, yeah it is. Only the pseudo-intellectual left seems to have
> >>> trouble understanding it.
>
> >>If you're sure you know what it means, you don't.
>
> > I'm absolutely certain what it means. It's so simple a child could
> > understand it.
>
> As I said to Gunner, it only looks simple to the simple-minded.
>
>
>
> > It's just a simple sentence, not a political football.
>
> If you think that a nominative absolute sentence is simple, then you don't
> understand the problem. This must leave you very frustrated that the Court
> took over 100 years and several cases to come out clearly on the issue of
> the individual right. You probably think you're smarter than all of those
> Justices. But the fact is, all you're telling us is that you haven't a clue.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
What he's telling you is that he and the NRA have made up his mind,
and there's no use pursuing this.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>What he's telling you is that he and the NRA have made up his mind,
>and there's no use pursuing this.
What I'm telling him is that it's a simple sentence, and if you don't
know what it means then you have a problem.
Hawke
>> After that explanation it's clear that to a grammarian even the sentence
>> (Fuck you.) is a complicated one. The point being everyone knows what it
>> means even if they are an idiot. Everyone knew what the Second Amendment
>> meant from day one as well. But after the work of "grammarians" and
>> "lawyers" some people are not so sure anymore. So I guess they can
>> consider their job well done.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> <g> I just don't want to go around and around on this, so I'm anticipating a
> couple of arguments.
>
> As for everyone knowing what the Second Amendment meant, I'm not so sure.
> Why in the hell Madison used a nominative absolute is something that a lot
> of people would love to ask him. It was known to be just as ambiguous in the
> 18th century as it is today. It was a literary device borrowed from the
> Latin ablative absolute, and it was viewed as an elegant way to turn a
> sentence. But it required context to accurately determine its meaning, and
> the Second has no context.
>
> Sometimes I think he just wrote something that anyone could read the way
> they wanted to. The whole point was to satisfy the Anti-Federalists and to
> get the whole thing ratified, after all.
>
> That being said, Scalia and the Court tried, in Heller, to put themselves
> into the *historical* context and read it that way. I think they got it
> right. The Amendment was overtly about the militia but the individual right
> was understood at the time. Thus, it says *the* right of the people. Madison
> wasn't being cute; it's just that the right was indeed understood. And I
> don't think that Scalia was just reaching for some vague implication in the
> words. He was looking for the real understanding at the time it was written.
> So I buy the conclusion that the Court reached in Heller.
>
> But to say that it's a simple sentence that anyone should understand that
> way today is a very stupid thing to say. It isn't "simple" in terms of
> meaning or context, and it arguably isn't "simple" in grammatical terms.
>
I think it's clear that when one writes something short and simple it's
done on purpose, so he can be sure the reader understands it. Anytime
you start adding more words to a sentence you increase the chance of
misunderstanding it. So I doubt that the shortness of the Second
Amendment was just happenstance any more than it's placement in the list
of rights was either. The Amendments were listed in order of importance
and it's my opinion that the reason for the brevity of the Second
Amendment was so it would be easy to understand, not difficult. Example,
you may need someone to explain Shakespeare or Chaucer to you but not
Peanuts. Therefore, I think Madison meant to make the Second Amendment
simple and perfectly clear. I think at the time it was written it was.
But language changes over time and the style of writing in those days is
a lot different than it is now. Meaning what was clear and precise when
it was written has become murky today. Aside from that, today we have
what they didn't in "the day", which is anti gun folks. There was no
such thing when the country was young. When you have a group like the
anti gun crowd, AND they have lawyers working for them, you are going to
take the simplest, most basic issue, and turn it into something complex
and complicated. But that is the intent. By confusing the true meaning
of something it's easier to attack it, which is their goal. So is the
Second Amendment truly difficult to understand or is a certain group
making it difficult on purpose? That question leaves three options.
Either the Second Amendment is some arcane and mysterious sentence we
cannot decipher, the writer had poor writing skills and didn't know what
he was doing when he wrote it, or it means what most people think it
means. I think you can guess where I come down. As a former editor
though, I think you would rather parse the shit out of it. 8-)
Hawke
Hawke
Klaus Schadenfreude
>though, I think you would rather parse the shit out of it. 8-)
Bingo.
Hawke
> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:otgvg55alknbehv5m...@4ax.com...>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7j5ug5l5ic32b1fpg...@4ax.com...>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4vstg5hnloegmj597...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> Constitution and the Founding Fathers?
>>>>>> They probably assume the left doesn't know anything about it since
>>>>>> they can't even understand a simple sentence like the Second
>>>>>> Amendment. That's my guess.
>>>>> The Second Amendment is not a simple sentence.
>>>> Uh, yeah, it is.
>>> Uh, no, it's not.
>> Uh, yeah it is. Only the pseudo-intellectual left seems to have
>> trouble understanding it.
>
> If you're sure you know what it means, you don't.
>
I don't know, Ed. It either means a citizen has a constitutional right
to have firearms or he doesn't. It's like a come to the fork in the road
question. Chose one of the two. In my book that is as simple as it gets.
Some people are intentionally making it more complicated than it really is.
Hawke
Hawke
>> In talk.politics.guns "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> In talk.politics.guns "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:otgvg55alknbehv5m...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> In talk.politics.guns "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:7j5ug5l5ic32b1fpg...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> In talk.politics.guns "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>> news:4vstg5hnloegmj597...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> In talk.politics.guns Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why is it that right wingers all seem to think they are experts on
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution and the Founding Fathers?
>>>>>>>>>> They probably assume the left doesn't know anything about it since
>>>>>>>>>> they can't even understand a simple sentence like the Second
>>>>>>>>>> Amendment. That's my guess.
>>>>>>>>> The Second Amendment is not a simple sentence.
>>>>>>>> Uh, yeah, it is.
>>>>>>> Uh, no, it's not.
>>>>>> Uh, yeah it is. Only the pseudo-intellectual left seems to have
>>>>>> trouble understanding it.
>>>>> If you're sure you know what it means, you don't.
>>>> understand it.
>>> As I said to Gunner, it only looks simple to the simple-minded.
>> trouble understanding it.
>
> editing English, and who has made a major avocation and some academic work
> studying the US Constitution and constitutional law, is likely to have an
> explanation about why the Court has struggled with this Amendment for over
> 100 years, and why it has generated reams of study on both sides...while all
> the while, in your simple way, you understood it perfectly all along, and
> you can't understand why all of those learned Justices just never got it.
> d8-)
>
>>
>>> If you think that a nominative absolute sentence is simple, then you don't
>>> understand the problem.
>
> times: argument from personal conviction, a variety of argumentum ad
> ignorantium: You believe it because you think you know, and therefore it's
> correct.
>
> no reason to believe one way or the other that the nominative phrase was
> intended to describe the necessary condition, or if it's just a sufficient
> condition, an example of why the clause is valid for all cases.
>
> Nominatives can go either way. That's the basis of Justice Stevens'
> argument, and he has plenty of evidence to draw upon. I just happen to think
> that Scalia's argument is stronger. And he has the history on his side.
> Unfortunately, that's not an acceptable argument for the originalists.
> Fortunately, only Thomas is an originalist on the Court today, and he's too
> intellectually wobbly to be much of a problem. d8-)
>
You think the court has wrestled with this question for over a hundred
years but for different reasons than I do. You seem to think it's such a
complicated and ambiguous statement that all these smart guys just have
had a devil of a time actually comprehending what the writer of the
Amendment meant when he wrote it. My reason is different, as you might
guess, I think it's political. From the time the Constitution was
written until 100 years passed there was no controversy over this issue.
Everybody in America had guns, always had, and nobody questioned
anyone's right to have a gun unless you were a criminal. But by the time
of the turn of the 20th century I think there was a change in the
thinking by the government insofar as they started to believe it was too
dangerous for everyone to be able to have firearms. They started to fear
an armed populace. Once the government began to fear an armed public
many of those in power started to think like governments have for
thousands of years, that they would be safer if the public was disarmed.
Once the powers in government changed their views regarding the public's
right to have weapons the "controversy" started. Did the Ammendment
protect an individual's right or not? I believe this was a ginned up
argument that gave the government the footing to begin a program to
"prove" that the 2nd Amendment didn't really allow the people to have
guns, and that only the government actually had that right. That view
flies in the face of the whole intent of the Bill of Rights. This new
view of the 2nd Amendment is meant to protect the government and not the
people. But we all know the Bill of Rights isn't to protect the
government's rights but ours. Ultimately, I think new people in
government don't want millions of armed people in modern America so they
made up this controversy. The problem is that about 90% of the public
thinks they have the right to have a gun. That kind of acceptance sort
of makes the government's position a losing one. They may have seen the
light now and are moving back to a 19th century view on guns. Heller may
just be the first step.
Hawke
Jim Stewart
You proved Ed's point more succinctly that he could.
As much as *I'd* like to be able to slip my PPK in
my jacket pocket any time I'd like, I think Ed is
right on this.
Ed Huntress
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CD07820...@216.196.97.130...
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
> news:4b1010fd$0$5008$607e...@cv.net:
>
>>
>> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CD077EAE7659We...@216.196.97.142...
>>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
>>> news:4b0ff9c0$0$31272 $607e...@cv.net:
>>>
>>>> Those who think it's simple and clear just don't get it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually my understanding is it was written so that the majority of
>>> persons
>>> in the newly formed country could read and understand it.
>>
>> That's an assertion that's declared in many Supreme Court decisions,
>> but it's often an iffy one. If it's so clear, why has the S.C. had to
>> make so many decisions about what the Constitution means, and why is
>> there so much disagreement among the Justices?
>
> Politics......pure and simple.
Not. A lot of it is honest disagreements about matters of Constitutional
law.
>
>> And why are cases
>> overturned on the meaning and/or intent of the original?
>>
>> It's a nice theory, but a tricky case like the Second puts it to the
>> test. The language of the Constitution is general, often vague, and
>> sometimes ambiguous. That's one reason our Constitution has survived
>> so long: It's a kind of Rorschach test, and people see in it what they
>> want to see. Like Klaus. <g>
>
> I don't know "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." seems
> pretty clear to me. Of course, it may not to you.
Sure, those few words are clear. But that's not the only thing that the
Amendment says.
> Even the Supreme
> Court ignores the prefatory clause most of the time.
If you're getting that from Scalia's decision in Heller, that's one of his
weak points in the decision. Stevens' comment that decisions must include
consideration of *all* of the words is equally true, and closer to standard
S.C. doctrine.
>
>>> I am always suspicious of those who want to take something fairly
>>> basic and
>>> simple and dress it up in complications that only they understand.
>>> Seems a good way to simply exclude the great unwashed from the
>>> conversation.
>>
>> Well, I am, too. But this isn't a simple and basic thing. For example,
>> do you know why the real originalists, like Bork, believe that the
>> Second does not confer an individual right?
>
> You haven't shown that yet.
Anyone who follows doctrines of Constitutional law, and legal opinion
regarding the Second, knows about it already.
I see it's even mentioned in Wikipedia's entry for Robert Bork. Why don't
you go see for yourself?
Here's a little window on it, from _Slouching Towards Gomorrah_: ""The
Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a
possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has
stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would
need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose" -- p 166.
In his earlier writing he talked more about the individual right. To find
out why his is a very originalist position, you'd have to study a bit about
originalist thought. That's harder, but if you're going to make assertions
about it, it might help to know the story.
> Besides, the majority of scholars on that
> subject disagree that it is a collective right.
And the majority of scholars say that we have anthropogenic global warming
and that Wall Street will be under six feet of water. d8-)
First, Bork is (or was; see below) a hard-case originalist. Most scholars
are not. Many of those "most scholars" actually are quite liberal --
Laurence Tribe agrees, basically, with the individual right, and he's about
as liberal as they come. The same applies to Sanford Levinson, the liberal
scholar who wrote "The Embarrassing Second Amendment."
Many scholars have come around on this issue in the last 20 years or so. My
point is not that Bork's judgment is in the majority; rather, it's that the
hard-bitten originalist position rejects an individual RKBA. This surprises
many people who think they are originalists.
>
>> Until you understand the
>> basis of their argument, it's easy to think that things are really
>> simple.
>
> They are until some folks try to make them not so.
You're smart enough to know that isn't the case. Do you know what was said
in the Congressional debates about the Second, when Congress first met to
consider the Bill of Rights? Do you know that it only applied to the federal
government, that it didn't apply to the states, and why? Do you know why the
Anti-Federalists demanded it in the first place? It had nothing to do with
an individual right. For that matter, the entire Bill of Rights was promises
about what the *federal government* wouldn't do.
I don't know what you know about these things, but if you don't know them,
that's why you think it's so simple.
>
>> They're not. Some of it has to do with being consistent in your
>> method, across different decisions on different issues. Scalia may
>> have dug himself a bit of a hole, for example, with the way he's
>> always disparaged the "substantive due process" decisions regarding
>> incorporation of various decisions under the 14th. Now he's facing
>> another Second Amendment case, this time one involving incorporation,
>> and it's almost a given that the Court will incorporate the Heller
>> decision.
>
> Yep.
>
>> But how, now that the conservatives are on record against the
>> rationale for doing so? We're going to see some pretty wild activism
>> here, by my guess. The Court may have to overturn the Slaughterhouse
>> cases in order to find a way to incorporate the Second Amendment
>> without "substantive due process," so that it applies to the states as
>> well as to the feds. That's a big overturning -- not that Scalia isn't
>> egotistical enough, and arrogant enough, to do it. (And not that he
>> would be wrong in doing so, IMO.)
>
> Which portion of the Slaughterhouse cases do you think needs to be
> overturned for the Second Amendment?
The decision regarding limited application of the privileges and immunities
clause.
> There are three ways for 14th
> Amendment recognition.
Uh...Ok, maybe. There actually are two that are in play here.
> The privileges and Immunities clause is only one
> of them. It is the basis for the ruling. The other two ways are due
> process and equal protections.
Let's dispense with equal protection. Basically, it's about equal protection
*within a state*. Where they've been extended over the heads of the states
(both the equal protection clause of the 5th, and that of the 14th), it's
been mostly about racial equality.
Due process -- which means substantive due process in this case -- has been
so disparaged by the conservatives, particularly Scalia, that they'd be the
laughingstock of the courts if they incorporate on that basis. Both Scalia
and Thomas have declared that it is an invalid doctrine, although Scalia has
upheld it on precedent. In a new area of law, regarding the Second, I don't
see it happening.
Both Thomas and Scalia also have been unfriendly to the equal protection
clause, FWIW, except in cases of overt racial discrimination. I don't see
that one getting anywhere.
It looks to me like they're going to have to take on the Slaughter-House
cases. In fact, that's what the petitioner's brief is all about. Gura tacked
on a bit about due process, but it's almost entirely a case for overturning
the Slaughter-House cases. Volokh says "It's certainly an attention-getting
way to brief the case. It's not just arguing for a win: It's arguing for a
revolution."
Fur is gonna fly. d8-)
> McDonald raises one of those and Nordyke
> (whose attorney is presenting) makes the other one. It will be
> interesting.
They'll throw in the kitchen sink, but the big one is the privileges and
immunities clause. The petitioners know about Scalia's and Thomas's words
concerning "substantive" due process.
> FWIW, the case that directly addressed the Second Amendment was us v
> Cruikshank, three years later.
Yeah, but Cruikshank is no longer considered good law. The S.C. finally
knifed it in the Heller case.
>
>> Conservatives don't like to break precedent when there have been so
>> many cases decided on the basis of the prior decision. So this one is
>> going to cause some fur to fly. Yet, on the surface, it looks like it
>> should be a slam-dunk.
>
> It will depend on which of the three legs it ends up standing on.
Two legs. I think that Scalia and the other conservatives are itching to
overturn the Slaughter-House cases. Obviously, based on his brief, Gura is,
too.
>
>>> Interestingly enough thise that want to complicate the Second
>>> amendment ususally aren't to hot on the others too, taking a view
>>> that governemtn can
>>> generally do what it likes if it can buy enough votes. No moral
>>> basis, no historical basis, just expience.
>>
>> I think you're overreaching here. People who study the Constitution in
>> a serious way recognize that the Second, along with most other
>> provisions of the Constitution, is a complicated issue *when viewed in
>> the broad context of other decisions*. That doesn't mean they oppose
>> the RKBA, nor that they would diminish the Constitution in any way.
>> Often, it just means that they love it enough that they want to get it
>> right and to be as consistent as possible; people like me, for
>> instance.
>
> And just how would you like to see it applied or not?
I'm not sure what you're asking here, but I'd like to see the
Slaughter-House cases overturned and the privileges and immunities clause
established as the basis for incorporation, and I'd like to see the Heller
case incorporated under that doctrine. As an aside, I'd also like to see the
Court clarify the scope of state and federal authority to pass gun control
laws, but I'm not counting on much there.
>
>>> And armed citizens are clearly a threat to the view that government
>>> is in charge, if only a symbolic threat.
>>
>> Largely irrelevant to the argument. You're assuming motivation on the
>> part of the Justices. If you do that, you have to look at motivations
>> on both sides.
>>
>>>
>>> Sorry Ed, your inability to understand a simple turn of phrase in no
>>> way validates your position. And Bork's interpetation, if accurately
>>> reproduced
>>> by you would make me call into question his entire process and make
>>> ne happy
>>> he was Borked.
>>
>> If you question what I said about Bork's opinion, you'd be much more
>> believable if you actually looked it up, rather than speculating.
>> Because your speculation is coming from the same source as your
>> conclusion, which is argumentum ad ignorantiam.
>
> Bork doesn't agree with the NRA's position that the 2A guarantees you any
> firearm, anytime with few restrictions. He feels that it is a militia
> amendment. I agree with him on that since I hold the right to keep and
> bear arms as being separate from the militia involvement....as does the
> Supreme Court in Heller.
See the above quote from Bork. As for the rest of that paragraph, it's not
clear what you agree with. Bork says that the Second Amendment is intended
to protect the states' rights to keep and arm their own militias, but that
there is no individual right. Is that what you're agreeing with?
>
>> Look it up. Enlighten yourself. And get into the argument enough to
>> recognize what the problem is with the Second. You'll wind up a lot
>> more knowledgable than the people who think it's all so simple, and
>> you'll even see why "originalism" is a crippled philosophy for dealing
>> with the Constitution. It might take some of the certitude out of your
>> conviction, but you'd have a better understanding about why such
>> things are argued before the Court, and why textual decisions rarely
>> result in uniform Court opinions.
>>
>> As for the Second being a "simple turn of phrase," don't try that
>> remark on people who know what they're talking about -- and that
>> includes serious students of the Constitution on either side of the
>> issue.
>>
>> Here's the acid test, Ghost: See if you can learn why hard-core
>> originalists like Bork oppose the RKBA.
>
> You will have to show where Bork stated he opposed the RKBA. I see where
> he attachs the 2A to the militia but RKBA is a separate issue.
There is the quote above, and there is this:
"[T]he National Rifle Association is always arguing that the Second
Amendment determines the right to bear arms. But I think it really is people's
right to bear arms in a militia. The NRA thinks it protects their right to
have Teflon coated bullets. But that's not the original understanding." --
Robert H. Bork, Former Federal Appeals Court Judge (3/14/89, Distinguished
Lecture Series, UC-Irvine)
Another comment that's sometimes quoted comes from an interview he gave to
Life Magazine in 1991. I can't access it online. And there are some
references to his law review articles -- and a lot of gun nutz blog noise
and shrieking about Bork being a "gun-grabbing statist," but without
citations. <g>
>
> If you understand that, you're
>> on your way to recognizing what's made the Second such a contentious
>> issue among Justices and legal scholars for so long -- and why it's
>> not as simple as you seem to think.
>
> Too many folks keep trying to tie the 2A to RKBA which it only does to
> provide protection to that right for the purposes of protecting the
> militia. For RKBA itself, look to the 9A.
That way lies madness. Bork says that the 9th Amendment is "an inkblot."
d8-)
The jurisprudence of the 9th is a sad sight to see.
Regarding the "see below" note above, you may be interested that Bork has
done at least a partial flip-flop and signed on to one of the amicus briefs
for Heller. I don't know what that's about, but his older originalist stance
rejected the idea on evidentiary grounds.
If you can't find anything about Bork's position, I'll give you a brief
rundown about why hard-core originalists can wind up rejecting the
individual right to keep and bear arms. But please don't ask me to look for
you until you've tried. I'll help if you don't find anything.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:cdj0h55jgp3klho59...@4ax.com...
Uh, Gunner, the boat left yesterday. d8-) If you actually read the Heller
case, you would have come across this at the very beginning of the decision:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp.
2-53.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does
not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The
operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an
individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
The militia issue is pretty much out of it, and has been since the Heller
decision was handed down.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:4B106F23...@digitalpath.net...
I remember where you stand. And if you remember what I said about it before
the Court heard the Heller case, you'll recall that Scalia wrote it almost
exactly as I called it. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
Nope. As most scholars have said, the Amendment is about the militia. The
concern expressed by the Anti-Federalists was all about the militia; the
Amendment was written to address their concern; the debates in the House
were all about the militia; and the need to have militias under state
control is addressed right in the preface.
But in the course of doing so it identifies a pre-existing individual right.
That's just about the way the Court decided it. And they took 154 pages to
do it, if you include the dissenting opinions. d8-)
Scalia is succinct and abrupt. If you can do it in a paragraph, all of the
facts on which the decision depends just flew right by you.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
Regardless of what all that means, it has nothing to do with the Second
Amendment. The Second is about the militia, period. The fact that it
acknowledged an individual right was just a part of the argument that the
federal government would not interfere.
Think of it as a fortunate aside. If it hadn't been for the militia issue,
there's no reason they would have said anything about it at all. Search the
history all you want: you won't find anyone, most especially the
Anti-Federalists, demanding an Amendment that assured an individual right to
keep and bear arms.
The individual right only had meaning at the state level. That's why many
state constitutions addressed the individual right. There was no authority
for the federal government to get involved at all, except that the
Anti-Federalists feared that the feds would use their militia-organizing
power to disarm the state militias.
Look it up. It will turn your whole understanding of the issue
upside-down -- which, in your case, means rightside-up. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
--
Ed Huntress
Hawke
> I remember where you stand. And if you remember what I said about it before
> the Court heard the Heller case, you'll recall that Scalia wrote it almost
> exactly as I called it. d8-)
Yeah, I know. But that alone ought to give you pause. Scalia is so far
to the right that using him to bolster your argument is pretty shaky. In
fact, on most issues if Scalia is for something I'm again it. It's kind
of like saying Bork agrees with me. I think it's kind of funny that this
issue has actually caused such a controversy. Like I said before, the
issue is basically a question of whether the Second Amendment was meant
to protect a citizen's right to bear arms. Either it was or it was not.
Either it protects the citizen from the government's intruding on his
ability to buy and own guns or it doesn't. It's really just a matter of
deciding it's one or the other. It's what happens after making the
decision that really matters.
If you say it doesn't give citizens the right to protect them from the
government taking away their guns then you go down the road to a country
with an unarmed public and all that implies regarding government power
compared to that of the people. If you say the amendment does give
citizens the right to protection from unreasonable restrictions on their
right to buy and own guns then you have a very different country. So how
you decide this issue has a lot of ramifications down the line. I think
the powers that be have been afraid to make this decision not that they
don't understand what the amendment means. I also think that we're
getting to a point where the choice which way we're going to go on this
issue is coming to a head, and right now it is looking like we're going
to choose the option where the Constitution does protect the citizens'
individual right to bear arms, and I don't just mean federally but all
across the country. Twenty years ago I wouldn't have believed we would
ever head in this direction. But I'm glad we are.
Hawke
RD (The Sandman)
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CD07820...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
>> news:4b1010fd$0$5008$607e...@cv.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CD077EAE7659We...@216.196.97.142...
>>>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
>>>> news:4b0ff9c0$0$31272 $607e...@cv.net:
>>>>
>>>>> Those who think it's simple and clear just don't get it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually my understanding is it was written so that the majority of
>>>> persons
>>>> in the newly formed country could read and understand it.
>>>
>>> That's an assertion that's declared in many Supreme Court decisions,
>>> but it's often an iffy one. If it's so clear, why has the S.C. had
>>> to make so many decisions about what the Constitution means, and why
>>> is there so much disagreement among the Justices?
>>
>> Politics......pure and simple.
>
> Not. A lot of it is honest disagreements about matters of
> Constitutional law.
I was being facetious, but not completely so since one's politics tend to
color how one reads history and previous Constitutional law.
>>> And why are cases
>>> overturned on the meaning and/or intent of the original?
>>>
>>> It's a nice theory, but a tricky case like the Second puts it to the
>>> test. The language of the Constitution is general, often vague, and
>>> sometimes ambiguous. That's one reason our Constitution has survived
>>> so long: It's a kind of Rorschach test, and people see in it what
>>> they want to see. Like Klaus. <g>
>>
>> I don't know "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
>> seems pretty clear to me. Of course, it may not to you.
>
> Sure, those few words are clear. But that's not the only thing that
> the Amendment says.
That's true, but even the Supremes leave out the prefatory clause more
often then not when discussing or referring to the "right to keep and
bear arms".
>> Even the Supreme
>> Court ignores the prefatory clause most of the time.
>
> If you're getting that from Scalia's decision in Heller, that's one of
> his weak points in the decision.
Nope, I am getting it from past history on the Supreme Court.
Stevens' comment that decisions must
> include consideration of *all* of the words is equally true, and
> closer to standard S.C. doctrine.
Actually, no, it isn't. Here is a list of some cases:
US v Cruikshank - 1876
Scott v Sanford - 1857
Logan v US - 1892
Miller v Texas - 1894
Brown v Walker - 1896
Robertson v Baldwin - 1897
Maxwell v Dow - 1899
Kepner v US - 1904
Trono v US - 1905
Twining v NJ - 1908
Adamson v California - 1947
Johnson v Eisentrager- 1950
Knapp v Schweitzer - 1958
Poe v Ullman - 1961
Konigsberg v State Bar - 1961
Duncan v Louisiana - 1968
Laird v Tatum - 1972
Roe v Wade - 1973
Moore v East Cleveland - 1976
Which all predated Scalia being on the Court and all cite the main clause
in the Second Amendment in either the opinion or the dissent without
citing the prefatory clause.
Since Scalia joined the Court, we have:
US v Verdugo - 1990
Planned Parenthood v Casey - 1992
Albright v Oliver - 1994
Muscarello v US - 1998
Which cited the main clause of the Second Amendment in either the opinion
or the dissent without citing the prefatory clause.
Now, to be fair, the prefatory clause was cited in:
Presser v Illinois - 1886
US v Schwimmer - 1929
US v Miller - 1939
Adams v Williams - 1972
Lewis v US - 1980
Printz/Mack v US - 1997
DC v Heller - 2008
Bottom line.....
Prefatory clause cited - 7
Prefatory clause not cited - 23
Seems the Supreme Court hasn't considered that prefatory clause to be
essential to the meaning of the main clause.
Stevens may be correct in that the clause should be considered, but he
is error when he states that it is the doctrine of the USSC that it be
so. ;)
>>>> I am always suspicious of those who want to take something fairly
>>>> basic and
>>>> simple and dress it up in complications that only they understand.
>>>> Seems a good way to simply exclude the great unwashed from the
>>>> conversation.
>>>
>>> Well, I am, too. But this isn't a simple and basic thing. For
>>> example, do you know why the real originalists, like Bork, believe
>>> that the Second does not confer an individual right?
>>
>> You haven't shown that yet.
>
> Anyone who follows doctrines of Constitutional law, and legal opinion
> regarding the Second, knows about it already.
>
> I see it's even mentioned in Wikipedia's entry for Robert Bork. Why
> don't you go see for yourself?
I know that Bork feels that the 2A is a militia amendment not a right to
keep and bear arms amendment.
> Here's a little window on it, from _Slouching Towards Gomorrah_: ""The
> Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves
> against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the
> federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard
> to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that
> purpose" -- p 166.
>
> In his earlier writing he talked more about the individual right. To
> find out why his is a very originalist position, you'd have to study a
> bit about originalist thought. That's harder, but if you're going to
> make assertions about it, it might help to know the story.
You are the one making assertions about Bork and originalist thought.
>> Besides, the majority of scholars on that
>> subject disagree that it is a collective right.
>
> And the majority of scholars say that we have anthropogenic global
> warming and that Wall Street will be under six feet of water. d8-)
Perhaps, we will.
> First, Bork is (or was; see below) a hard-case originalist. Most
> scholars are not. Many of those "most scholars" actually are quite
> liberal -- Laurence Tribe agrees, basically, with the individual
> right, and he's about as liberal as they come.
Yep, but he just came across to the 'dark side' recently.
> The same applies to
> Sanford Levinson, the liberal scholar who wrote "The Embarrassing
> Second Amendment."
>
> Many scholars have come around on this issue in the last 20 years or
> so. My point is not that Bork's judgment is in the majority; rather,
> it's that the hard-bitten originalist position rejects an individual
> RKBA. This surprises many people who think they are originalists.
Be that as it may.......I doubt you have ever seen me looking to Bork as
a source.
>>> Until you understand the
>>> basis of their argument, it's easy to think that things are really
>>> simple.
>>
>> They are until some folks try to make them not so.
>
> You're smart enough to know that isn't the case. Do you know what was
> said in the Congressional debates about the Second, when Congress
> first met to consider the Bill of Rights? Do you know that it only
> applied to the federal government, that it didn't apply to the states,
> and why?
The entire Bill of Rights was declared to apply only the federal
government in Barron v Baltimore in 1833. It wasn't until the
ratification of the 14A during the Reconstruction period that folks
looked at it much differently.
> Do you know why the Anti-Federalists demanded it in the first
> place?
They demanded the 2A be put in place to protect the pool of armed
citizenry from whom the militia was drawn. They didn't wish the state
militias to be disarmed via benign neglect from an overreaching federal
government. Per the Constitution in Art I(8)(16) the onus for arming the
militia was on the feds. If they failed to perform, the militia could be
essentially unable to provide its role.
> It had nothing to do with an individual right.
It had to do with providing protection of that right from the central
government interfering with it.
> For that matter,
> the entire Bill of Rights was promises about what the *federal
> government* wouldn't do.
The entire Constitution is a limitation on the central government or the
description of how it was to work.
> I don't know what you know about these things, but if you don't know
> them, that's why you think it's so simple.
I am 'somewhat' aware of them, Ed. ;)
Mostly, yes, but it was deliberately drafted to provide equal
protections for all persons, not just racial equality.
> Due process -- which means substantive due process in this case -- has
> been so disparaged by the conservatives, particularly Scalia, that
> they'd be the laughingstock of the courts if they incorporate on that
> basis. Both Scalia and Thomas have declared that it is an invalid
> doctrine, although Scalia has upheld it on precedent. In a new area of
> law, regarding the Second, I don't see it happening.
We shall see.
> Both Thomas and Scalia also have been unfriendly to the equal
> protection clause, FWIW, except in cases of overt racial
> discrimination. I don't see that one getting anywhere.
>
> It looks to me like they're going to have to take on the
> Slaughter-House cases. In fact, that's what the petitioner's brief is
> all about. Gura tacked on a bit about due process, but it's almost
> entirely a case for overturning the Slaughter-House cases. Volokh says
> "It's certainly an attention-getting way to brief the case. It's not
> just arguing for a win: It's arguing for a revolution."
>
> Fur is gonna fly. d8-)
Yep.....it will be very interesting to watch.
>> McDonald raises one of those and Nordyke
>> (whose attorney is presenting) makes the other one. It will be
>> interesting.
>
> They'll throw in the kitchen sink, but the big one is the privileges
> and immunities clause. The petitioners know about Scalia's and
> Thomas's words concerning "substantive" due process.
>
>> FWIW, the case that directly addressed the Second Amendment was us v
>> Cruikshank, three years later.
>
> Yeah, but Cruikshank is no longer considered good law. The S.C.
> finally knifed it in the Heller case.
Which moves it pretty much out of the way although it was the one that
was cited in several more recent cases.
>>> Conservatives don't like to break precedent when there have been so
>>> many cases decided on the basis of the prior decision. So this one
>>> is going to cause some fur to fly. Yet, on the surface, it looks
>>> like it should be a slam-dunk.
>>
>> It will depend on which of the three legs it ends up standing on.
>
> Two legs. I think that Scalia and the other conservatives are itching
> to overturn the Slaughter-House cases. Obviously, based on his brief,
> Gura is, too.
Probably, but there are still three legs. One of which, BTW, was very
well done in Nordyke.
>>>> Interestingly enough thise that want to complicate the Second
>>>> amendment ususally aren't to hot on the others too, taking a view
>>>> that governemtn can
>>>> generally do what it likes if it can buy enough votes. No moral
>>>> basis, no historical basis, just expience.
>>>
>>> I think you're overreaching here. People who study the Constitution
>>> in a serious way recognize that the Second, along with most other
>>> provisions of the Constitution, is a complicated issue *when viewed
>>> in the broad context of other decisions*. That doesn't mean they
>>> oppose the RKBA, nor that they would diminish the Constitution in
>>> any way. Often, it just means that they love it enough that they
>>> want to get it right and to be as consistent as possible; people
>>> like me, for instance.
>>
>> And just how would you like to see it applied or not?
>
> I'm not sure what you're asking here, but I'd like to see the
> Slaughter-House cases overturned and the privileges and immunities
> clause established as the basis for incorporation, and I'd like to see
> the Heller case incorporated under that doctrine. As an aside, I'd
> also like to see the Court clarify the scope of state and federal
> authority to pass gun control laws, but I'm not counting on much
> there.
That will probably come later in the case by case sequences that will be
sure to follow if McDonald is decided as expected.
Not completely. I agree that the purpose of the 2A was to perserve
militias not to secure an individual right. I feel that was already
secured historically and if necessary would be looked at under the 9A.
The 2aq, however, provided that cover to the militias via its protection
of the common right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, he is disagreeing with the NRA on the scope of the 2A. I agree with
him that the 2a is NOT the origination of the RKBA. I agree with
Cruikshank in that regard.
> Another comment that's sometimes quoted comes from an interview he
> gave to Life Magazine in 1991. I can't access it online. And there are
> some references to his law review articles -- and a lot of gun nutz
> blog noise and shrieking about Bork being a "gun-grabbing statist,"
> but without citations. <g>
It is basically in the same gist.
>> If you understand that, you're
>>> on your way to recognizing what's made the Second such a contentious
>>> issue among Justices and legal scholars for so long -- and why it's
>>> not as simple as you seem to think.
>>
>> Too many folks keep trying to tie the 2A to RKBA which it only does
>> to provide protection to that right for the purposes of protecting
>> the militia. For RKBA itself, look to the 9A.
>
> That way lies madness. Bork says that the 9th Amendment is "an
> inkblot." d8-)
Bork is not the end all of jurisprudence. Like many justices he will
occasionally step on an acorn.
> The jurisprudence of the 9th is a sad sight to see.
>
> Regarding the "see below" note above, you may be interested that Bork
> has done at least a partial flip-flop and signed on to one of the
> amicus briefs for Heller. I don't know what that's about, but his
> older originalist stance rejected the idea on evidentiary grounds.
>
> If you can't find anything about Bork's position, I'll give you a
> brief rundown about why hard-core originalists can wind up rejecting
> the individual right to keep and bear arms. But please don't ask me to
> look for you until you've tried. I'll help if you don't find anything.
I have already found over the years what I need to form my opinion.
Sorry.
Klaus Schadenfreude
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
I didn't realize there were still die-hards out there who think RKBA
is somehow tied to militia membership.
[sigh]
Hawke
>> I don't know, Ed. It either means a citizen has a constitutional right to
>> have firearms or he doesn't. It's like a come to the fork in the road
>> question. Chose one of the two. In my book that is as simple as it gets.
>> Some people are intentionally making it more complicated than it really
>> is.
>
> Nope. As most scholars have said, the Amendment is about the militia. The
> concern expressed by the Anti-Federalists was all about the militia; the
> Amendment was written to address their concern; the debates in the House
> were all about the militia; and the need to have militias under state
> control is addressed right in the preface.
>
> But in the course of doing so it identifies a pre-existing individual right.
> That's just about the way the Court decided it. And they took 154 pages to
> do it, if you include the dissenting opinions. d8-)
>
> Scalia is succinct and abrupt. If you can do it in a paragraph, all of the
> facts on which the decision depends just flew right by you.
>
It may well be that the discussion at the time was about militias.
That's not surprising because back then all the arguing was about what
the federal government was going to be able to do and what the states
could do on their own. Militias would be an important element in that
discussion. But there was little discussion about the people's right to
bear arms. I wonder why? My theory is that people don't have discussions
about things that are commonly accepted by everyone. You don't hear any
arguments about what a ham sandwich is, or what a tire is, do you? Of
course not, because everyone accepts what one is. In those days no one
thought the right of individuals to have firearms was something to be
discussed. Who would argue that citizens didn't have a right to bear
arms or that they didn't have that right until the Constitution gave it
to them? They all thought they had the right to guns. People were in the
U.S. for hundreds of years before the Constitution was written and never
did they think they didn't have an automatic and natural right to have
weapons to hunt and defend themselves with. So when the Constitution was
being written why would anyone discuss what everyone already knew was true?
And while you may be overly influenced by what the Heller case held,
most people don't understand what all the arguing was about. They think
just like the colonial era Americans did. Since guns are just tools and
without them you can't defend your life, people have a natural right to
them. They always thought that. Militias and who controls them is
another issue. Americans thought they had a right to a gun for several
hundreds of years notwithstanding anything the Heller case decided. In
my opinion they are in the right regardless of what any "scholars" have
to say about it. But don't be surprised if the scholars eventually come
around to the people's point of view. It may take them a while because
lots of times scholars may be bright but are totally out of touch with
reality and with ordinary people's lives.
Hawke
Ed Huntress
>
>> I remember where you stand. And if you remember what I said about it
>> before the Court heard the Heller case, you'll recall that Scalia wrote
>> it almost exactly as I called it. d8-)
>
> Yeah, I know. But that alone ought to give you pause. Scalia is so far to
> the right that using him to bolster your argument is pretty shaky. In
> fact, on most issues if Scalia is for something I'm again it. It's kind of
> like saying Bork agrees with me. I think it's kind of funny that this
> issue has actually caused such a controversy. Like I said before, the
> issue is basically a question of whether the Second Amendment was meant to
> protect a citizen's right to bear arms.
No, that isn't the question. Considering that the Bill of Rights only
applied to the federal government at the time it was written, it's certain
that it only referred to what the *feds* could not do. And what it was
about,
what the Anti-Federalists demanded, was protection from the feds taking over
the state militias and disarming the citizens.
> Either it was or it was not.
It wasn't. The feds didn't have the power to do so, so the whole argument is
moot. It was up to the states.
> Either it protects the citizen from the government's intruding on his
> ability to buy and own guns or it doesn't.
Which government? It applied only to the feds. See Barron v. Baltimore,
USSC, 1833.
> It's really just a matter of deciding it's one or the other. It's what
> happens after making the decision that really matters.
>
> If you say it doesn't give citizens the right to protect them from the
> government taking away their guns then you go down the road to a country
> with an unarmed public and all that implies regarding government power
> compared to that of the people.
The first question is what the Amendment originally intended. For that, see
above.
The second question is what the Amendment means in light of the 14th
Amendment and the doctrine(s) of incorporation. That turned the whole thing
around. Some of the most critical arguments over individual rights and the
Bill of Rights since 1870 or so have concerned that issue.
> If you say the amendment does give
> citizens the right to protection from unreasonable restrictions on their
> right to buy and own guns then you have a very different country. So how
> you decide this issue has a lot of ramifications down the line. I think
> the powers that be have been afraid to make this decision not that they
> don't understand what the amendment means.
The first question is what it intended, in the legal environment that
existed before the Reconstruction Amendments, and that is not difficult. It
intends that Congress shall not disarm the citizens of the states, because
the federal government acknowledged the states' right to have their own
militias, armed by gun-owning citizens, if that's what the states wanted.
What it "means" today is more difficult. Now the courts have to consider
whether the Second actually addresses an individual right, now that we have
presumed federal guarantees of fundamental rights and have broken rights
into "classes," and whether that right is a fundamental one that is
guaranteed to all US citizens. As I've said, I think that Scalia got it
about right. There are some logical gaps in his decision but it reaches a
sensible conclusion.
Madison didn't have to consider that issue at all. He wrote it, and Congress
debated and revised it, and the state legislatures ratified it, without
worrying whether the federal government was addressing an individual right.
All of the Bill of Rights was about what the federal government could not
do; whether the states wanted to guarantee a RKBA was up to them. The states
just wanted to feds to keep their hands off of the states' citizen's guns.
RD (The Sandman)
Ed agrees with the Scalia decision in Heller that RKBA is an individual
right with no militia ties. He feels that Scalia's arguments have holes
in them. In that regard, he appears to look to Bork who disagree's with
the NRA's version of the 2A (as do I) that it means any gun, any time to
anyone but I doesn't appear to agree with Bork on the individual rights
issue. I do think that Ed feels that Scalia's stance may give him some
problems on NcDonald. I think there are more legs on the stool than Ed
does.
Ed Huntress
This is a completely bogus list, RD. I suspect you have never read these
cases. I'm familiar with a few of them.
Take Twining, for example. It was about the 14th Amendment, not the 2nd.
Here's all that Twining says about the 2nd:
"...and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2d Amendment (Presser v.
Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 , 29 L. ed. 615, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580), have been
distinctly held NOT to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the
United States, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgment by the
states..." (Notice the word "not" -- my emphasis <g>)
Twining's reference to the 2nd is called an "obiter dictum," which means a
comment in the decision that does not bear directly on the case. The case is
not about the meaning of the 2nd; it's about the application of the Bill of
Rights to the states, specifically the 5th Amendment, via the 14th. In cases
of obiter dicta, the court selects some point, or some conclusion, that
illustrates what they're doing with the actual issue. In no way does it
reflect a doctrinal position on the 2nd, or on the relationship of the first
phrase to the clause.
Twining's reference also is not a conclusion by the Court, but a reference
to another case, Presser v. Illinios. To cite Presser in this context is
beyond bizarre. That case is ALL ABOUT the militia. Far from dismissing the
military phrase, the Court examined it from several angles, including this:
"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute
the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well
as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general
government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying
the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people
from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their
rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the
people from performing their duty to the general government."
You also cite Cruikshank. That case was basically judged on the 1st and 14th
Amendments. It did not go into the 2nd, except to declare that the RKBA is
not a guarantee against the states. The case did not examine the full
meaning of the 2nd in any way, so it's a lousy example.
FWIW, all three cases have been largely overturned; the final death knell
will be the McDonald case. And they've been overturned on doctrinal grounds,
so none of those cases are representative of current court doctrine.
Your citation of Trono really threw me; I've never heard of that one. So I
read it for the first time. It's a murder case involving a question of
double jeopardy. Here's everything it says about the 2nd, or about prefatory
clauses:
"This language is to be found in connection with other language in the same
act providing for the rights of a person accused of crime in the Philippine
Islands. The whole language is substantially taken from the Bill of Rights
set forth in the amendments to the Constitution of the United States,
omitting the provisions in regard to the right of trial by jury and the
right of the people to bear arms, and containing the prohibition of the
Thirteenth Amendment, and also prohibiting the passage of bills of attainder
and ex post facto laws."
So your claim appears to be based on the fact that the Philippine law
doesn't address it. <g> It appears you got that nonsense from some gun nutz
site, or else you're one hell of a Constitutional scholar, trying to pull
the wool over my eyes. d8-)
Tell us the truth, RD. Did you read these cases, or are you doing a Gunner
and parroting something you picked up from a gun advocacy site online?
Because the ones I know about are dead wrong, and the kind of reference you
see in the Trono case, which also is wrong on your point, looks like
something someone would drag up to write a polemic, and is depending on it
all being too overwhelming for anyone to check.
C'mon, RD, you should know me better by now. <g> Do you want to go to the
mat on the other cases? I'll join in, if you want to play.
>
> Since Scalia joined the Court, we have:
>
> US v Verdugo - 1990
> Planned Parenthood v Casey - 1992
> Albright v Oliver - 1994
> Muscarello v US - 1998
>
> Which cited the main clause of the Second Amendment in either the opinion
> or the dissent without citing the prefatory clause.
Pfffhtt! Here's the Albright case. Show us where it even MENTIONS the Second
Amendment, or prefatory clauses, please:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-833.ZO.html
Now, after you've had a good workout with that one, show us where it appears
in Planned Parenthood:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZS.html
Bullshit and baloney. <g>
>
> Now, to be fair, the prefatory clause was cited in:
>
> Presser v Illinois - 1886
> US v Schwimmer - 1929
> US v Miller - 1939
> Adams v Williams - 1972
> Lewis v US - 1980
> Printz/Mack v US - 1997
> DC v Heller - 2008
>
> Bottom line.....
>
> Prefatory clause cited - 7
> Prefatory clause not cited - 23
>
> Seems the Supreme Court hasn't considered that prefatory clause to be
> essential to the meaning of the main clause.
'Seems you picked up a bunch of crap online, from someone who doesn't know
their ass from a hole in the ground. d8-)
>
> Stevens may be correct in that the clause should be considered, but he
> is error when he states that it is the doctrine of the USSC that it be
> so. ;)
Nope.
And backing them up.
>
>>> Besides, the majority of scholars on that
>>> subject disagree that it is a collective right.
>>
>> And the majority of scholars say that we have anthropogenic global
>> warming and that Wall Street will be under six feet of water. d8-)
>
> Perhaps, we will.
Perhaps. Or perhaps not.
>
>> First, Bork is (or was; see below) a hard-case originalist. Most
>> scholars are not. Many of those "most scholars" actually are quite
>> liberal -- Laurence Tribe agrees, basically, with the individual
>> right, and he's about as liberal as they come.
>
> Yep, but he just came across to the 'dark side' recently.
>
>> The same applies to
>> Sanford Levinson, the liberal scholar who wrote "The Embarrassing
>> Second Amendment."
>>
>> Many scholars have come around on this issue in the last 20 years or
>> so. My point is not that Bork's judgment is in the majority; rather,
>> it's that the hard-bitten originalist position rejects an individual
>> RKBA. This surprises many people who think they are originalists.
>
> Be that as it may.......I doubt you have ever seen me looking to Bork as
> a source.
The point is, there are several doctrines, both conservative and liberal,
that reject the RKBA. You cited Cruikshank; I assume you know what it says,
right? And I hope you're not going to claim that it's a liberal decision,
because it's far from it.
>
>>>> Until you understand the
>>>> basis of their argument, it's easy to think that things are really
>>>> simple.
>>>
>>> They are until some folks try to make them not so.
>>
>> You're smart enough to know that isn't the case. Do you know what was
>> said in the Congressional debates about the Second, when Congress
>> first met to consider the Bill of Rights? Do you know that it only
>> applied to the federal government, that it didn't apply to the states,
>> and why?
>
> The entire Bill of Rights was declared to apply only the federal
> government in Barron v Baltimore in 1833. It wasn't until the
> ratification of the 14A during the Reconstruction period that folks
> looked at it much differently.
Correct. And the Founders had no way of knowing that it would be. So taking
the words they wrote in the late 18th century and applying them in the 21st
has to contend with the fact that the 14th has turned the table upside-down.
>
>> Do you know why the Anti-Federalists demanded it in the first
>> place?
>
> They demanded the 2A be put in place to protect the pool of armed
> citizenry from whom the militia was drawn. They didn't wish the state
> militias to be disarmed via benign neglect from an overreaching federal
> government. Per the Constitution in Art I(8)(16) the onus for arming the
> militia was on the feds. If they failed to perform, the militia could be
> essentially unable to provide its role.
Very good.
>
>> It had nothing to do with an individual right.
>
> It had to do with providing protection of that right from the central
> government interfering with it.
I'll agree with you on that point, but it still was only about the federal
government. And incorporating the 2nd leaves you in a very strange place,
because the Amendment was written to protect state authority to arm a
militia as they see fit, and now we're proposing to tell them that they have
to do it the way the federal govenment says they must.
Or, like Scalia, who seeded the field for an incorporation decision by
divorcing the militia from the right to self-defense -- something that took
a bit of a walk into the "penumbras and emanations" that he's so disparaged
for most of his life. It was entertaining to see how he handled it. He's
very, very good.
Says you. If you go for precedent on this one, please find a better source
than your last one. d8-)
The Cruikshank decision said that the RKBA "is not a right granted by the
constitution." If it's going to be cited now, there will be issues.
>
>>>> Conservatives don't like to break precedent when there have been so
>>>> many cases decided on the basis of the prior decision. So this one
>>>> is going to cause some fur to fly. Yet, on the surface, it looks
>>>> like it should be a slam-dunk.
>>>
>>> It will depend on which of the three legs it ends up standing on.
>>
>> Two legs. I think that Scalia and the other conservatives are itching
>> to overturn the Slaughter-House cases. Obviously, based on his brief,
>> Gura is, too.
>
> Probably, but there are still three legs. One of which, BTW, was very
> well done in Nordyke.
Are you talking about the 9th Circuit case, or the brief in McDonald?
Well, work on that idea in regard to the Court cases you cited above. The
current doctrine is that all parts of a Constitutional provision must be
considered.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
That's fair.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>> I don't know, Ed. It either means a citizen has a constitutional right
>>> to have firearms or he doesn't. It's like a come to the fork in the road
>>> question. Chose one of the two. In my book that is as simple as it gets.
>>> Some people are intentionally making it more complicated than it really
>>> is.
>>
>> Nope. As most scholars have said, the Amendment is about the militia. The
>> concern expressed by the Anti-Federalists was all about the militia; the
>> Amendment was written to address their concern; the debates in the House
>> were all about the militia; and the need to have militias under state
>> control is addressed right in the preface.
>>
>> But in the course of doing so it identifies a pre-existing individual
>> right. That's just about the way the Court decided it. And they took 154
>> pages to do it, if you include the dissenting opinions. d8-)
>>
>> Scalia is succinct and abrupt. If you can do it in a paragraph, all of
>> the facts on which the decision depends just flew right by you.
>>
>
>
> It may well be that the discussion at the time was about militias.
It was. Look up the debates about the Second Amendment in the First
Congress. We only know what was said in the House; the Senate debates were
not recorded.
> That's not surprising because back then all the arguing was about what the
> federal government was going to be able to do and what the states could do
> on their own.
True. That's what the Bill of Rights was all about.
> Militias would be an important element in that discussion. But there was
> little discussion about the people's right to bear arms. I wonder why? My
> theory is that people don't have discussions about things that are
> commonly accepted by everyone. You don't hear any arguments about what a
> ham sandwich is, or what a tire is, do you? Of course not, because
> everyone accepts what one is. In those days no one thought the right of
> individuals to have firearms was something to be discussed. Who would
> argue that citizens didn't have a right to bear arms or that they didn't
> have that right until the Constitution gave it to them? They all thought
> they had the right to guns. People were in the U.S. for hundreds of years
> before the Constitution was written and never did they think they didn't
> have an automatic and natural right to have weapons to hunt and defend
> themselves with. So when the Constitution was being written why would
> anyone discuss what everyone already knew was true?
That argument has been made, but you'd have to say the same thing about the
right to privacy. Note that the conservatives say there is no such right,
but you can draw from American history (as the Court did to a small degree
in Griswold v. CT) and show that it was an "understood" right.
I give that argument some credence but I think it's far stronger because of
the "the right of the people" phrase in the Second.
>
> And while you may be overly influenced by what the Heller case held, most
> people don't understand what all the arguing was about. They think just
> like the colonial era Americans did.
Except that they have gone back and forth on the issue over the years. For
example, in recent Gallup polls, 68% said that ordinary citizens have a
right to own handguns. In a 1959 poll, it was 36%.
So don't assume too much from the fickle opinions of the public. Next year,
or in ten years, it could reverse again. We need a solid basis of
Constitutional law to deal with these things, not the vagueries of public
opinion.
> Since guns are just tools and without them you can't defend your life,
> people have a natural right to them. They always thought that.
Not always. See above.
> Militias and who controls them is another issue. Americans thought they
> had a right to a gun for several hundreds of years notwithstanding
> anything the Heller case decided. In my opinion they are in the right
> regardless of what any "scholars" have to say about it.
Again, the public runs hot and cold.
> But don't be surprised if the scholars eventually come around to the
> people's point of view. It may take them a while because lots of times
> scholars may be bright but are totally out of touch with reality and with
> ordinary people's lives.
You're looking at it bass-ackwards. "Ordinary people" swing like a yo-yo.
Constitutional scholarship evolves with understanding.
--
Ed Huntress
Hawke
>> issue has actually caused such a controversy. Like I said before, the
>> issue is basically a question of whether the Second Amendment was meant to
>> protect a citizen's right to bear arms.
>
> No, that isn't the question. Considering that the Bill of Rights only
> applied to the federal government at the time it was written, it's certain
> that it only referred to what the *feds* could not do. And what it was
> about,
> what the Anti-Federalists demanded, was protection from the feds taking over
> the state militias and disarming the citizens.
Whoops, you're right. In colonial times the Bill of Rights only applied
to the federal government and not to the states. I was thinking of today
not what it was originally.
>> Either it was or it was not.
That is still the question now except it's a matter of does or does not.
> It wasn't. The feds didn't have the power to do so, so the whole argument is
> moot. It was up to the states.
>
>> Either it protects the citizen from the government's intruding on his
>> ability to buy and own guns or it doesn't.
>
> Which government? It applied only to the feds. See Barron v. Baltimore,
> USSC, 1833.
Yes that's true, but it has been a steady process of the federal
government taking over everything that is important or that isn't really
done better by the states. Minor things like issuing auto licenses are
never going to be done by the federal government but something big like
gun ownership that applies across the country were bound to be handled
by the central government. Broadly speaking, the question of whether
people can have their right to bear arms infringed by any government is
an issue that is too large to leave to the individual states. Everything
that really matters eventually winds up the jurisdiction of the federal
government anyway.
>
>> It's really just a matter of deciding it's one or the other. It's what
>> happens after making the decision that really matters.
>>
>> If you say it doesn't give citizens the right to protect them from the
>> government taking away their guns then you go down the road to a country
>> with an unarmed public and all that implies regarding government power
>> compared to that of the people.
>
> The first question is what the Amendment originally intended. For that, see
> above.
Correct. But even then it would have meant does the federal government
have the power to infringe on gun possession of its citizens. So while
the 2nd Amendment didn't address what the states could do it was meant
to apply to the federal government. So it was still a question of
whether an individual had the right to bear arms. They just hadn't
applied it to the states yet. But I know you are hung up on the militia
issue though.
> The second question is what the Amendment means in light of the 14th
> Amendment and the doctrine(s) of incorporation. That turned the whole thing
> around. Some of the most critical arguments over individual rights and the
> Bill of Rights since 1870 or so have concerned that issue.
I've said it before that the 14th Amendment only made the states have to
play by the same rules the federal government does. So whatever was
prohibited by the feds it was just a matter of time before the same was
true for the states. That's only logical.
>> If you say the amendment does give
>> citizens the right to protection from unreasonable restrictions on their
>> right to buy and own guns then you have a very different country. So how
>> you decide this issue has a lot of ramifications down the line. I think
>> the powers that be have been afraid to make this decision not that they
>> don't understand what the amendment means.
>
> The first question is what it intended, in the legal environment that
> existed before the Reconstruction Amendments, and that is not difficult. It
> intends that Congress shall not disarm the citizens of the states, because
> the federal government acknowledged the states' right to have their own
> militias, armed by gun-owning citizens, if that's what the states wanted.
>
> What it "means" today is more difficult. Now the courts have to consider
> whether the Second actually addresses an individual right, now that we have
> presumed federal guarantees of fundamental rights and have broken rights
> into "classes," and whether that right is a fundamental one that is
> guaranteed to all US citizens. As I've said, I think that Scalia got it
> about right. There are some logical gaps in his decision but it reaches a
> sensible conclusion.
>
> Madison didn't have to consider that issue at all. He wrote it, and Congress
> debated and revised it, and the state legislatures ratified it, without
> worrying whether the federal government was addressing an individual right.
> All of the Bill of Rights was about what the federal government could not
> do; whether the states wanted to guarantee a RKBA was up to them. The states
> just wanted to feds to keep their hands off of the states' citizen's guns.
I don't disagree with that. You do have different issues at different
times. What was intended in the late 1700s is one thing and what we have
now are different. But they do have things in common. The main point is
whether the government, whether federal or state has the right to
"infringe" on an individual's right to arms. At one time the threat was
from the states now it's more likely to be the central government but in
the end it's about whether people have a "right" to have guns or not.
The other issues are peripheral. The main question is whether citizens
have a constitutional right to guns. Most Americans, myself included
believe the right is spelled out in the 2nd Amendment, but I guess it
all depends on how you read it.
As someone with plenty of experience with the English language, in my
opinion, the 2nd Amendment is a rather simple to understand statement.
The main and most important clause is the one where the citizen's right
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is stated. The clause about
the militia simply explains why. It says why the people's right shall
not be infringed, but it's not the critical point of the statement. The
entire point of it is about the people's right. You may see it
otherwise. Questions about the original intent, or the post 14th
Amendment changes aside I still see the main point being a simple one.
Maybe it's just me but I don't see a sentence as short as the 2nd
Amendment as being terribly difficult to understand. I thought I
understood it 40 years ago. It hasn't become any more difficult over
time either. It still means the citizens have the right to gun ownership
and the government can't disarm the citizen without a good deal of due
process.
Hawke
Martin H. Eastburn
It was created post constitution and unification.
Ok Hawke - you no longer have first Amendment(to the constitution).
You no longer have a constitution.
We all know your history and government information and facts are not
valid and shows ignorance.
Martin
Ed Huntress
In this case, as in many others, it's a consequence of the 14th Amendment.
Once the point was raised that all citizens are entitled to the
"fundamental" rights described in the Constitution, particularly the Bill of
Rights, the entire relationship between the state governments and the
federal government was flipped on its back.
It's hard to believe that many people who talk about state's rights and who
decry big government don't seem to realize this is what produces most of
their complaints. Yet these same people, including some here who have argued
in the past that the Founders "intended" for everyone to have a right to
keep and bear arms, don't seem to understand this crucial point.
>
>
>>
>>> It's really just a matter of deciding it's one or the other. It's what
>>> happens after making the decision that really matters.
>>>
>>> If you say it doesn't give citizens the right to protect them from the
>>> government taking away their guns then you go down the road to a country
>>> with an unarmed public and all that implies regarding government power
>>> compared to that of the people.
>>
>> The first question is what the Amendment originally intended. For that,
>> see above.
>
> Correct. But even then it would have meant does the federal government
> have the power to infringe on gun possession of its citizens.
A textual reading says it does not. The Court gave it a textual reading, and
finally cleared up that point. Where the Heller decision had to make a leap
beyond the text, and beyond the "recognized authorities," is in declaring an
individual right for self-defense.
I'm not saying that Scalia was wrong on that point, only that the Court's
justification falls into the category of "penumbras and emanations," which
is to say a combination of the text and the surrounding history, to arrive
at that conclusion. And strict constructionists, as well as self-style
"texualists" like Scalia, usually disparage doing that sort of thing.
He did a fancy two-step to avoid an outright contradiction, and it was a
pretty good dance. I agree with the conclusion because I'm neither a strict
constructionist nor a textualist -- nor a strict originalist, for that
matter. To me, reading into the texts as they were intended before the 14th
Amendment, trying to figure out what they "mean" today, requires some more
thought and historical context to ascertain, than you can reach by "strict"
anything. You have to look carefully at the historical context, IMO. (That's
not the same as declaring a "living Constitution," which involves trying to
put the underlying principles into *today's* historical context. That's not
good, IMO.)
> So while the 2nd Amendment didn't address what the states could do it was
> meant to apply to the federal government. So it was still a question of
> whether an individual had the right to bear arms. They just hadn't applied
> it to the states yet. But I know you are hung up on the militia issue
> though.
I'm not "hung up" on it. There's very little good scholarship on the 2nd
that *doesn't* involve considering it. And most scholars agree that the
whole point of the 2nd was to answer the Anti-Federalists' demand that the
feds keep their hands off of the state militias; today, most scholars agree
that meant, first and foremost, not disarming the public under some pretext
drawn from Article 1, Section 8. You can go around the barn about
"understood" rights all you want, but the fact is that the Amerndment itself
was all about answering that demand.
>
>> The second question is what the Amendment means in light of the 14th
>> Amendment and the doctrine(s) of incorporation. That turned the whole
>> thing around. Some of the most critical arguments over individual rights
>> and the Bill of Rights since 1870 or so have concerned that issue.
>
> I've said it before that the 14th Amendment only made the states have to
> play by the same rules the federal government does. So whatever was
> prohibited by the feds it was just a matter of time before the same was
> true for the states. That's only logical.
Not quite -- that's too simplistic. Just because something was prohibited to
the federal government doesn't mean that the "right" thus described
automatically applies to the states. In fact, there are several components
of the Bill of Rights, beyond the 2nd Amendment, that have not been
incorporated to this day.
Again, the Bill of Rights was a set of prohibitions against the *federal*
government. In some cases, rights are explicity reserved for the states.
Thus, there can be no incorporation of those provisions. This is the source
of the basic argument against incorporation of the 2nd; if it was designed
to provent the feds from usurping state militias, then incorporating it
*against* the states is illogical.
This may be why Scalia took the leap from a militia argument to a
self-defense argument. The Court could have decided Heller on the militia
basis alone. The Court went to some trouble to explain that the militia is
all able-bodied men; it would be easy enough to extend that to all citizens,
or all adult citizens, and to wind up with the same result, in terms of
prohibiting the federal government from infringing on the RKBA. With a
self-defense argument at hand, it's much easier, logically, to incorporate
the right.
I don't think it's "spelled out" in the 2nd, except as a condition necessary
to keep the feds from interfering with the states' militias. But the
question of an individual right, taken in historical context, falls in favor
of the general right, IMO. Scalia took the inference from "the right of the
people" and from the historical context to decide that it is a fundamental,
individual right.
But it isn't explicit in the 2nd. It's implicit. I agree with the decision
but then, I'm inclined to be a little bit activist. <g> Scalia stepped over
the line and became "acitivist" himself when he extended the intent of the
2nd to include a broader, individual right that is not dependent on the need
to protect the states' militias. And I think he was right in doing so. The
curious thing is that this is one kind of activism about which he has made
numerous sarcastic remarks over the years. d8-)
A textualist like Scalia would agree that the Court must decide cases in the
narrowest possible terms to decide the case at hand. That's standard
jurisprudence for conservatives. The narrowest terms in this case would have
been to declare everyone a member of the militia, as he already did in the
decision, and then to rule that the 2nd prevents the federal government from
disarming "the people" (defined any way you like; it works both ways in this
case) so that the right of the states to keep and arm their militias, as
they see fit, is not infringed. But he went beyond that. Bad, bad
conservative textualist. <g>
>
> As someone with plenty of experience with the English language, in my
> opinion, the 2nd Amendment is a rather simple to understand statement.
Then you still have a problem.
> The main and most important clause is the one where the citizen's right to
> keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is stated.
Your opinion. Many disagree, with cause and justification. I'm not going to
make their case for them, but it has been made, and made very well.
> The clause about the militia simply explains why.
And the "why" is where all the problem begins.
> It says why the people's right shall not be infringed, but it's not the
> critical point of the statement.
An assumption on your part. The key to nominative absolutes is that there is
always a LOGICAL connection between the phrase and the clause, but there is
no grammatical guidance to tell us what it is, or how significant it is.
If it wasn't a moot point, I could write ten examples for you of nominative
absolute sentences, constructed parallel like the 2nd, which are clearly
ambiguous on this point, or which logically point to the opposite of what
you're contending here.
Here's one:
"The sun having risen, the sailors could see what had been invisible through
the moonless night, that the island lay dead ahead."
No sun, no see. d8-)
> The entire point of it is about the people's right. You may see it
> otherwise.
You keep going around in the same circle. I remember you did the same thing
when we were discussing Heller before the decision. You seem to get it, and
then you revert to type.
The point *now* is about the peoples' right. It wasn't when the Amendment
was written. The point then was keeping the feds' hands off of the state
militias.
> Questions about the original intent, or the post 14th Amendment changes
> aside I still see the main point being a simple one. Maybe it's just me
> but I don't see a sentence as short as the 2nd Amendment as being terribly
> difficult to understand. I thought I understood it 40 years ago.
You probably were wrong. See above. As you've repeated over and over again
through this thread, you do see that the sentence meant something different
in the context of the Constitutional authority held by the federal
government in the 18th century. It means something different now, or at
least we believe it does. The original intent is not the only thing it
"means" now. What it does "mean" now is the point of contention, for all of
these years.
> It hasn't become any more difficult over time either. It still means the
> citizens have the right to gun ownership and the government can't disarm
> the citizen without a good deal of due process.
>
> Hawke
So far, all it means is that the federal government can't disarm citizens.
If it's incorporated under McDonald, it will mean something different. But
the incorporation is not automatic, under law or under any valid logic. The
implications of the 14th in relation to the 2nd still has to be adjudicated,
because the 14th says nothing about the RKBA being a fundamental right, and
it says nothing about the application of it over the heads of the states.
And when the 2nd was written, the idea wouldn't have crossed anyone's mind.
There was no Constitutional authority even to question it.
--
Ed Huntress
RD (The Sandman)
I have looked at them, yes.
> Take Twining, for example. It was about the 14th Amendment, not the
> 2nd.
No kidding.... ;) Where did I say that it was a Second Amendment case
since there have been pitifully few of them? I said that they were cases
that mentioned the right to keep and/or bear arms without citing the
prefatory clause. That is what the list is...no more...no less.
Here's all that Twining says about the 2nd:
>
> "...and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2d Amendment
> (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 , 29 L. ed. 615, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep.
> 580), have been distinctly held NOT to be privileges and immunities of
> citizens of the United States, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment
> against abridgment by the states..." (Notice the word "not" -- my
> emphasis <g>)
You also notice that as I noted, it does not contain a reference to the
prefatory clause.
Not quite. It declared that the right to keep and bear arms was not a
right granted by the Constitution nor one reliant on it for its
existence. It stated that the 2a was aprotection of that right against
the central government not the states.
It, however, as noted, did not mention the prefatory clause. That is
what the list was about...not whether or not these were 2A cases.
The case did not
> examine the full meaning of the 2nd in any way, so it's a lousy
> example.
>
> FWIW, all three cases have been largely overturned; the final death
> knell will be the McDonald case. And they've been overturned on
> doctrinal grounds, so none of those cases are representative of
> current court doctrine.
>
> Your citation of Trono really threw me; I've never heard of that one.
> So I read it for the first time. It's a murder case involving a
> question of double jeopardy. Here's everything it says about the 2nd,
> or about prefatory clauses:
>
> "This language is to be found in connection with other language in the
> same act providing for the rights of a person accused of crime in the
> Philippine Islands. The whole language is substantially taken from the
> Bill of Rights set forth in the amendments to the Constitution of the
> United States, omitting the provisions in regard to the right of trial
> by jury and the right of the people to bear arms, and containing the
> prohibition of the Thirteenth Amendment, and also prohibiting the
> passage of bills of attainder and ex post facto laws."
>
> So your claim appears to be based on the fact that the Philippine law
> doesn't address it. <g> It appears you got that nonsense from some gun
> nutz site, or else you're one hell of a Constitutional scholar, trying
> to pull the wool over my eyes. d8-)
None of the above. It was simply a list of cases by the Supreme Court
where the right to keep and bear arms is mentioned but the prefatory
clause regarding militias is not.......or in a few cases it is.
> Tell us the truth, RD. Did you read these cases, or are you doing a
> Gunner and parroting something you picked up from a gun advocacy site
> online? Because the ones I know about are dead wrong, and the kind of
> reference you see in the Trono case, which also is wrong on your
> point, looks like something someone would drag up to write a polemic,
> and is depending on it all being too overwhelming for anyone to check.
How is wrong on my point? My point was that these cases mentioned the
right to keep and bear arms with or without mention of the prefatory
clause. Pure and simple. Look at what my claim was.
> C'mon, RD, you should know me better by now. <g> Do you want to go to
> the mat on the other cases? I'll join in, if you want to play.
>
>
>>
>> Since Scalia joined the Court, we have:
>>
>> US v Verdugo - 1990
>> Planned Parenthood v Casey - 1992
>> Albright v Oliver - 1994
>> Muscarello v US - 1998
>>
>> Which cited the main clause of the Second Amendment in either the
>> opinion or the dissent without citing the prefatory clause.
>
> Pfffhtt! Here's the Albright case. Show us where it even MENTIONS the
> Second Amendment, or prefatory clauses, please:
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-833.ZO.html
"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause
cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific
guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This "liberty" is not
a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of
property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; *the right to keep
and bear arms;* the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and
so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a
freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless
restraints . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and
sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly
careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their
abridgment." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 543 (1961) (dissenting
opinion). [ ALBRIGHT v. OLIVER, ___ U.S. ___ (1994) , 18]
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/510/266.html
> Now, after you've had a good workout with that one, show us where it
> appears in Planned Parenthood:
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZS.html
>
> Bullshit and baloney. <g>
"Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the
time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits
of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment
protects. See U. S. Const., Arndt. 9. As the second Justice Harlan
recognized:
"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause
cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific
guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not
a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of
property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep
and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and
so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a
freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless
restraints, ... and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and
sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly
careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their
abridgment." Poe v. Ullman, supra, at 543 (opinion dissenting from
dismissal on jurisdictional grounds).
http://supreme.justia.com/us/505/833/case.html
>> Now, to be fair, the prefatory clause was cited in:
>>
>> Presser v Illinois - 1886
>> US v Schwimmer - 1929
>> US v Miller - 1939
>> Adams v Williams - 1972
>> Lewis v US - 1980
>> Printz/Mack v US - 1997
>> DC v Heller - 2008
>>
>> Bottom line.....
>>
>> Prefatory clause cited - 7
>> Prefatory clause not cited - 23
>>
>> Seems the Supreme Court hasn't considered that prefatory clause to be
>> essential to the meaning of the main clause.
>
> 'Seems you picked up a bunch of crap online, from someone who doesn't
> know their ass from a hole in the ground. d8-)
Not if you revisit the subject of the list. It was simply one where the
right to keep and bear arms was mentioned but the prefatory clause
usually wasn't.
>> Stevens may be correct in that the clause should be considered, but
>> he is error when he states that it is the doctrine of the USSC that
>> it be so. ;)
>
> Nope.
See above list. It is simply a list of USSC cases where RKBA is
mentioned and the prefatory clause usually isn't. If you look at it in
that light, the list is correct.
So? I don't disagree with you on Bork. I disagree with Bork's statement
that there is no individual right to keep and bear.
>>>> Besides, the majority of scholars on that
>>>> subject disagree that it is a collective right.
>>>
>>> And the majority of scholars say that we have anthropogenic global
>>> warming and that Wall Street will be under six feet of water. d8-)
>>
>> Perhaps, we will.
>
> Perhaps. Or perhaps not.
>
>>
>>> First, Bork is (or was; see below) a hard-case originalist. Most
>>> scholars are not. Many of those "most scholars" actually are quite
>>> liberal -- Laurence Tribe agrees, basically, with the individual
>>> right, and he's about as liberal as they come.
>>
>> Yep, but he just came across to the 'dark side' recently.
>>
>>> The same applies to
>>> Sanford Levinson, the liberal scholar who wrote "The Embarrassing
>>> Second Amendment."
>>>
>>> Many scholars have come around on this issue in the last 20 years or
>>> so. My point is not that Bork's judgment is in the majority; rather,
>>> it's that the hard-bitten originalist position rejects an individual
>>> RKBA. This surprises many people who think they are originalists.
>>
>> Be that as it may.......I doubt you have ever seen me looking to Bork
>> as a source.
>
> The point is, there are several doctrines, both conservative and
> liberal, that reject the RKBA. You cited Cruikshank; I assume you know
> what it says, right? And I hope you're not going to claim that it's a
> liberal decision, because it's far from it.
I have never attached liberal or conservative to the portion of
Cruikshank that I cite. So don't let your hopes get you carried away.
>>>>> Until you understand the
>>>>> basis of their argument, it's easy to think that things are really
>>>>> simple.
>>>>
>>>> They are until some folks try to make them not so.
>>>
>>> You're smart enough to know that isn't the case. Do you know what
>>> was said in the Congressional debates about the Second, when
>>> Congress first met to consider the Bill of Rights? Do you know that
>>> it only applied to the federal government, that it didn't apply to
>>> the states, and why?
>>
>> The entire Bill of Rights was declared to apply only the federal
>> government in Barron v Baltimore in 1833. It wasn't until the
>> ratification of the 14A during the Reconstruction period that folks
>> looked at it much differently.
>
> Correct. And the Founders had no way of knowing that it would be. So
> taking the words they wrote in the late 18th century and applying them
> in the 21st has to contend with the fact that the 14th has turned the
> table upside-down.
Only as far as the application to the states is concerned. That was also
one of the thrusts of Cruikshank......just who that amendment limited and
that court was post 14A.
>>> Do you know why the Anti-Federalists demanded it in the first
>>> place?
>>
>> They demanded the 2A be put in place to protect the pool of armed
>> citizenry from whom the militia was drawn. They didn't wish the
>> state militias to be disarmed via benign neglect from an overreaching
>> federal government. Per the Constitution in Art I(8)(16) the onus
>> for arming the militia was on the feds. If they failed to perform,
>> the militia could be essentially unable to provide its role.
>
> Very good.
>
>>
>>> It had nothing to do with an individual right.
>>
>> It had to do with providing protection of that right from the central
>> government interfering with it.
>
> I'll agree with you on that point, but it still was only about the
> federal government. And incorporating the 2nd leaves you in a very
> strange place, because the Amendment was written to protect state
> authority to arm a militia as they see fit, and now we're proposing to
> tell them that they have to do it the way the federal govenment says
> they must.
Or that the states cannot interfere with that process like has been done
in Chicago, for example. I don't see McDonald and blowing open gun laws.
I see it as simply extending the 2A to apply to the states like most of
the BoR does. To what extent that will affect local or state gun laws, I
don't know, but I suspect that the ruling, like Heller, will be very
narrow and will leave the details to be ironed out on a state by state
basis.
> Or, like Scalia, who seeded the field for an incorporation decision by
> divorcing the militia from the right to self-defense -- something that
> took a bit of a walk into the "penumbras and emanations" that he's so
> disparaged for most of his life. It was entertaining to see how he
> handled it. He's very, very good.
It also came out very much like Thomas has envisioned it....so I wonder
somewhat about influence from him. I hear the claim a lot that he is a
silent Scalia but I think that influence goes both ways.
Or perhaps a better understanding of what you are looking at. I know
what it was and what it purported to be. I stated that and, apparently,
you missed it, ignored it or simply decided to sail down the road on your
own. ;)
Not if one holds RKBA and the 2A to be separate issues as I do. I see
the RKBA as the right that is *protected* by the 2A, not granted or given
by it. That is one point I agree with the Cruikshank Court on.
>>>>> Conservatives don't like to break precedent when there have been
>>>>> so many cases decided on the basis of the prior decision. So this
>>>>> one is going to cause some fur to fly. Yet, on the surface, it
>>>>> looks like it should be a slam-dunk.
>>>>
>>>> It will depend on which of the three legs it ends up standing on.
>>>
>>> Two legs. I think that Scalia and the other conservatives are
>>> itching to overturn the Slaughter-House cases. Obviously, based on
>>> his brief, Gura is, too.
>>
>> Probably, but there are still three legs. One of which, BTW, was
>> very well done in Nordyke.
>
> Are you talking about the 9th Circuit case, or the brief in McDonald?
The 9th circuit case. The one which is currently on hold by the en banc
panel until McDonald is decided.
Ed Huntress
I hope you don't mind, but this is getting unweildy and I'm going to cut it
down to your current responses concerning our disagreement about Court
doctrine.
<snip>
Damn, RD, you are making this hard. That isn't the Albright case! That's
ALBRIGHT quoting from POE V. ULLMAN! Furthermore, it's from the DISSENT. The
DISSENT is written by the ones who LOST. The losers don't write the
doctrine. <g>
Jeez. So what makes you think that the Court would have stated it that way
in Albright? Do you think they should have edited Harlan's quote from Poe?
<ggg>
>
>
>> Now, after you've had a good workout with that one, show us where it
>> appears in Planned Parenthood:
>>
>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZS.html
>>
>> Bullshit and baloney. <g>
>
> "Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the
> time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits
> of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment
> protects. See U. S. Const., Arndt. 9. As the second Justice Harlan
> recognized:
>
> "[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause
> cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific
> guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not
> a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of
> property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep
> and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and
> so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a
> freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless
> restraints, ... and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and
> sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly
> careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their
> abridgment." Poe v. Ullman, supra, at 543 (opinion dissenting from
> dismissal on jurisdictional grounds).
>
> http://supreme.justia.com/us/505/833/case.html
POE AGAIN! For Christ's sake, is that what this is all about? You're
counting cases as addressing the clause without the phrase when they quote
Poe?
Let's settle something here. We're talking about Doctrine. See the top of
this post. That's what I said, and then you said that "including all the
words" is NOT part of doctrine.
But it is. In the first place, court doctrines don't come from obiter dicta
(most of your examples, so far) or from dissenting opinions, unless they're
ensconsed in the majority decision of *another*, later case. This particular
doctrine is one of the longest-standing in Supreme Court jurisprudence and
it comes from one of the first cases heard by the Court, which I'll cite at
the end of this.
>
>
>>> Now, to be fair, the prefatory clause was cited in:
>>>
>>> Presser v Illinois - 1886
>>> US v Schwimmer - 1929
>>> US v Miller - 1939
>>> Adams v Williams - 1972
>>> Lewis v US - 1980
>>> Printz/Mack v US - 1997
>>> DC v Heller - 2008
>>>
>>> Bottom line.....
>>>
>>> Prefatory clause cited - 7
>>> Prefatory clause not cited - 23
>>>
>>> Seems the Supreme Court hasn't considered that prefatory clause to be
>>> essential to the meaning of the main clause.
>>
>> 'Seems you picked up a bunch of crap online, from someone who doesn't
>> know their ass from a hole in the ground. d8-)
>
> Not if you revisit the subject of the list. It was simply one where the
> right to keep and bear arms was mentioned but the prefatory clause
> usually wasn't.
That's not what you said it was. I said "Stevens' comment that decisions
must include consideration of *all* of the words is equally true, and closer
to standard S.C. doctrine." To which you responded, "Actually, no, it isn't.
Here is a list of some cases:"
Then you cite your list, presumably, from what you said above, as examples
in which you claim that the doctrine was not what I said it was. The Harlan
quote from Poe is famous and frequently quoted; how many times, besides
Albright and Planned Parenthood, are you counting the same quote, over and
over again, and counting it as another "example" each time?
Sheesh. RD, you are changing what you said, and you've produced a list that
appears to be from someone not as careful as you, because I don't believe
you would have compiled that nonsense on your own. For example, the "Scott
v. Sanford" case actually is "Dred Scott v. Sandford," the worst case in US
history and definitely NOT doctrinal in any sense. The Presser case is
mostly *about* the militia. And the Trono case, which cites only what the
Phillipine law does *not* contain, not commenting upon US law. And then the
obiter dicta, and dissents...how many are such examples?
I'm not going around on this; the list is a waste of time, and bogus.
FWIW at this point, THIS is the doctrine, and it has been since 1803:
"It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be
without effect." Marbury v. Madison, (1803).
And with that, I must get on to something else. We'll all have more fun when
the McDonald case is heard, and we'll doubtless discuss the orals then,
after the briefs are all in and we have a chance to read some of them.
--
Ed Huntress
Martin H. Eastburn
The Bill of Rights was created because the values made the Constitution
to be on shaky grounds with some delegates, but all agreed that it must be
created so as the Fed would not rule otherwise as well as the states.
The Federal government continued to enhance it preventing states from
mucking with the folks - e.g. freedom of the slaves and rights of man...
And note: The Amendments to the Constitution of the Unites States of America
simply mean they are Amendments to the Constitution! Or part of it once written
and ratified.
Otherwise - No freedom of speech or of the press for anyone anymore ? Religion ?
Maybe the XVI is no longer valid for use in the various states ? only DC ?!!!
(Yea no more Federal Taxes)...
The first 10 were called the Bill of Rights and ratified December 15, 1791.
Martin
Hawke
> In this case, as in many others, it's a consequence of the 14th Amendment.
> Once the point was raised that all citizens are entitled to the
> "fundamental" rights described in the Constitution, particularly the Bill of
> Rights, the entire relationship between the state governments and the
> federal government was flipped on its back.
Yes, and it points out a number of shortcomings of the Founding Fathers.
One of which is the obvious way they discriminated against everybody
except property owning white men. It makes them look pretty bad when
they use language of equality for all, when by all, they mean all
wealthy white men. It also shows the mistake of not realizing from the
start they should have made the Constitution apply to all the states
right from the start. Then there would have been no need for the 14th
Amendment.
> It's hard to believe that many people who talk about state's rights and who
> decry big government don't seem to realize this is what produces most of
> their complaints. Yet these same people, including some here who have argued
> in the past that the Founders "intended" for everyone to have a right to
> keep and bear arms, don't seem to understand this crucial point.
Don't we all know that "states rights" has been nothing more than code
for discrimination? Moreover, it just shows that the Founders had no
idea the direction the country was going. The were so small minded they
couldn't see the country as a colossus with a powerful central
government. They couldn't get past seeing it as a collection of
individual states all fighting for power. But it didn't take long for
the one country idea to take over from the many states one. Most of them
didn't get it in those days though. Short sighted to the max.
>> Correct. But even then it would have meant does the federal government
>> have the power to infringe on gun possession of its citizens.
>
> A textual reading says it does not. The Court gave it a textual reading, and
> finally cleared up that point. Where the Heller decision had to make a leap
> beyond the text, and beyond the "recognized authorities," is in declaring an
> individual right for self-defense.
Funny isn't it? How even the most conservative justices can make that
"leap" whenever it suits them. They did the same thing in Bush v Gore.
> I'm not saying that Scalia was wrong on that point, only that the Court's
> justification falls into the category of "penumbras and emanations," which
> is to say a combination of the text and the surrounding history, to arrive
> at that conclusion. And strict constructionists, as well as self-style
> "texualists" like Scalia, usually disparage doing that sort of thing.
Yeah, but that is when "they" are doing it. It's different when he's the
one making a leap from what he would normally do. The thing is a
constitution is very limiting. No way could a document written hundreds
of years ago foresee anything like the modern world. To try to twist it
so that it does is nutty. "Finding" new things in the Constitution is a
good example, like in the penumbras and emanations. The important thing
is there are implied ideas not spelled out. Take the right of privacy.
It's not there in the Constitution but if it can be implied then you can
say that also gives a woman a right to reproductive rights. That's just
plain made up because the original document couldn't possibly have
anything about that kind of thing in it. But the law needed to address
that issue so they "found" a new right. That's pretzel logic to me.
> He did a fancy two-step to avoid an outright contradiction, and it was a
> pretty good dance. I agree with the conclusion because I'm neither a strict
> constructionist nor a textualist -- nor a strict originalist, for that
> matter. To me, reading into the texts as they were intended before the 14th
> Amendment, trying to figure out what they "mean" today, requires some more
> thought and historical context to ascertain, than you can reach by "strict"
> anything. You have to look carefully at the historical context, IMO. (That's
> not the same as declaring a "living Constitution," which involves trying to
> put the underlying principles into *today's* historical context. That's not
> good, IMO.)
Personally, I think Originalists are just plain crackpots. The idea that
we need to decide things today according to what 18th century men
thought was right is silly. Textualists aren't much better. It's all a
bunch of hooey. These people are politicians and they are writing as law
what they think is right according to their political views. We all know
that and proof is why there is such a fight by the parties to get people
with specific political views on the court. You know ahead of time how
they will decide the law depending on their politics. Scalia is a right
winger and he thinks people ought to be able to have a gun. I'm as
shocked that he found that right in the Constitution as I was to find
out there was gambling going on in the back of Rick's bar in Casablanca.
>> So while the 2nd Amendment didn't address what the states could do it was
>> meant to apply to the federal government. So it was still a question of
>> whether an individual had the right to bear arms. They just hadn't applied
>> it to the states yet. But I know you are hung up on the militia issue
>> though.
>
> I'm not "hung up" on it. There's very little good scholarship on the 2nd
> that *doesn't* involve considering it. And most scholars agree that the
> whole point of the 2nd was to answer the Anti-Federalists' demand that the
> feds keep their hands off of the state militias; today, most scholars agree
> that meant, first and foremost, not disarming the public under some pretext
> drawn from Article 1, Section 8. You can go around the barn about
> "understood" rights all you want, but the fact is that the Amerndment itself
> was all about answering that demand.
That may or may not be true but the fact remains that what those 18th
century men thought about militias and the central government hasn't a
damn thing to do with what we are talking about now. It may have been
important then but it's clearly meaningless now. My point is since that
is the case why even bring it up anymore when we're talking about the
people's right to guns not the rights of states or militias?
>>> The second question is what the Amendment means in light of the 14th
>>> Amendment and the doctrine(s) of incorporation. That turned the whole
>>> thing around. Some of the most critical arguments over individual rights
>>> and the Bill of Rights since 1870 or so have concerned that issue.
>> I've said it before that the 14th Amendment only made the states have to
>> play by the same rules the federal government does. So whatever was
>> prohibited by the feds it was just a matter of time before the same was
>> true for the states. That's only logical.
>
> Not quite -- that's too simplistic. Just because something was prohibited to
> the federal government doesn't mean that the "right" thus described
> automatically applies to the states. In fact, there are several components
> of the Bill of Rights, beyond the 2nd Amendment, that have not been
> incorporated to this day.
All that shows it how slow the law is in making changes that should be
made. Here's another one. Take the McNaughton rule, which concerns
pleading insanity as a defense. Even now a person isn't considered
insane unless he is so crazy he doesn't even recognize the difference
between right and wrong. Psychology and mental health have come so far
since insanity was defined that way it's not even funny. The law is
still in the dark ages in many ways, one of which is that there are
still areas where incorporation is incomplete.
> Again, the Bill of Rights was a set of prohibitions against the *federal*
> government. In some cases, rights are explicity reserved for the states.
> Thus, there can be no incorporation of those provisions. This is the source
> of the basic argument against incorporation of the 2nd; if it was designed
> to provent the feds from usurping state militias, then incorporating it
> *against* the states is illogical.
Unless it's the 21st century and militias have nothing to do with
today's question, which is should law abiding citizens have a right to
buy and own guns without the government interfering? That is a totally
different question than anything about the 14th Amendment or with the
subject of militias, isn't it? So why are we even mentioning militias?
They don't apply any more.
> This may be why Scalia took the leap from a militia argument to a
> self-defense argument. The Court could have decided Heller on the militia
> basis alone. The Court went to some trouble to explain that the militia is
> all able-bodied men; it would be easy enough to extend that to all citizens,
> or all adult citizens, and to wind up with the same result, in terms of
> prohibiting the federal government from infringing on the RKBA. With a
> self-defense argument at hand, it's much easier, logically, to incorporate
> the right.
Scalia took that leap because he wanted to, nothing more arcane than
that. That is how it works. You're making it sound like these people in
the court have to go through all kinds of work to "discover" how they
are going to rule. It's way simpler than that. They know where they are
going right from the start. It's like bad science. They know what they
want to find out then they write a decision that takes them there.
That's why their decisions seem illogical so often, which is because
they aren't consistent with their legal jurisprudence, but they are
consistent with their politics.
>>> The first question is what it intended, in the legal environment that
>>> existed before the Reconstruction Amendments, and that is not difficult.
>>> It intends that Congress shall not disarm the citizens of the states,
>>> because the federal government acknowledged the states' right to have
>>> their own militias, armed by gun-owning citizens, if that's what the
>>> states wanted.
Yep, that is what it meant then. But today is not then. Everything is
way different now. What the issues were then and what their arguments
were then shouldn't determine what we do today. That is what is wrong
with Originalism. If you have to go by what they thought back then you
would still be counting blacks as 3/5 of a person. Or arguing about the
right to ownership of human beings.
>>> What it "means" today is more difficult. Now the courts have to consider
>>> whether the Second actually addresses an individual right, now that we
>>> have presumed federal guarantees of fundamental rights and have broken
>>> rights into "classes," and whether that right is a fundamental one that
>>> is guaranteed to all US citizens. As I've said, I think that Scalia got
>>> it about right. There are some logical gaps in his decision but it
>>> reaches a sensible conclusion.
That's true. His decision is in agreement with what I think. Clearly,
that makes it a brilliant piece of lawmaking.
> I don't think it's "spelled out" in the 2nd, except as a condition necessary
> to keep the feds from interfering with the states' militias. But the
> question of an individual right, taken in historical context, falls in favor
> of the general right, IMO. Scalia took the inference from "the right of the
> people" and from the historical context to decide that it is a fundamental,
> individual right.
The beauty of being a Supreme Court Justice is you get to take your
inferences from anywhere you want. Then you get to decide anything you
want. I knew where Scalia wanted to wind up all along. How he got there
didn't' matter to me. All that matters is that when all is said and done
he came out with a decision that conservatives wanted, which is just
what I thought he would do.
> But it isn't explicit in the 2nd. It's implicit. I agree with the decision
> but then, I'm inclined to be a little bit activist. <g> Scalia stepped over
> the line and became "acitivist" himself when he extended the intent of the
> 2nd to include a broader, individual right that is not dependent on the need
> to protect the states' militias. And I think he was right in doing so. The
> curious thing is that this is one kind of activism about which he has made
> numerous sarcastic remarks over the years. d8-)
Being a judge is great isn't it? You get to choose when to be an
activist and when not to. Besides, he's a card carrying republican,
which in my book makes him a 1st class hypocrite. Criticizing others for
their "activism" while engaging in it himself, see what I mean?
> A textualist like Scalia would agree that the Court must decide cases in the
> narrowest possible terms to decide the case at hand. That's standard
> jurisprudence for conservatives. The narrowest terms in this case would have
> been to declare everyone a member of the militia, as he already did in the
> decision, and then to rule that the 2nd prevents the federal government from
> disarming "the people" (defined any way you like; it works both ways in this
> case) so that the right of the states to keep and arm their militias, as
> they see fit, is not infringed. But he went beyond that. Bad, bad
> conservative textualist. <g>
But totally in character of a hypocritical republican. And you don't see
the politics in his decisions? They're totally political.
>> As someone with plenty of experience with the English language, in my
>> opinion, the 2nd Amendment is a rather simple to understand statement.
>
> Then you still have a problem.
Maybe. But maybe it's you that is having a problem in that you have come
to the point where you are like the people in the emperor's new clothes
who can't see the man is nude. I'm saying the Amendment is so simple a
child can understand it and you are saying it's so deep and so
complicated even scholars can't comprehend it. Really, I do think I know
what complicated is. I don't see it here. Maybe you just need to hold it
up to the light and look at it in a different angle. Maybe you'll see it
then. You're making it way more complicated than it really is. Do you
think Madison meant it to be that hard to understand what he wrote, or
do you think he was trying to make it easy? Why would he make it hard?
It was the 2nd of a list of 10 and it was supposed to be understood by
the citizenry. Yet he wrote such a puzzling sentence no one can
comprehend it. That's logical?
>> The main and most important clause is the one where the citizen's right to
>> keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is stated.
>
> Your opinion. Many disagree, with cause and justification. I'm not going to
> make their case for them, but it has been made, and made very well.
Remember, the fact that they disagree with me is just opinion on their
part too. What makes their argument better? They have scholars on their
side? All I have it the public's view. Both of us have logical fallacies
backing us up. So we're even.
>> The clause about the militia simply explains why.
>
> And the "why" is where all the problem begins.
Maybe, but maybe it doesn't really mean that much and was just thrown in
as an afterthought to the real meaning.
>> It says why the people's right shall not be infringed, but it's not the
>> critical point of the statement.
>
> An assumption on your part. The key to nominative absolutes is that there is
> always a LOGICAL connection between the phrase and the clause, but there is
> no grammatical guidance to tell us what it is, or how significant it is.
That means we are supposed to make an assumption. When you think
everyone knows what you are talking about you write things that way. I
believe Madison thought everyone knew they had the right to guns and
mentioning the militias simply gave that idea more support.
> If it wasn't a moot point, I could write ten examples for you of nominative
> absolute sentences, constructed parallel like the 2nd, which are clearly
> ambiguous on this point, or which logically point to the opposite of what
> you're contending here.
>
> Here's one:
>
> "The sun having risen, the sailors could see what had been invisible through
> the moonless night, that the island lay dead ahead."
>
> No sun, no see. d8-)
>
>> The entire point of it is about the people's right. You may see it
>> otherwise.
>
> You keep going around in the same circle. I remember you did the same thing
> when we were discussing Heller before the decision. You seem to get it, and
> then you revert to type.
I confess, you are correct on that one. Too many times I repeated that
argument. So I won't be doing that again. Even though I was right.
> The point *now* is about the peoples' right. It wasn't when the Amendment
> was written. The point then was keeping the feds' hands off of the state
> militias.
If you say so. Although I am not so certain as you are about that. The
idea that something in the Bill of Rights, which had a specific purpose,
was not about the right of the people but was about the militias. I
don't recall anywhere else where the Bill of Rights, which was all about
guarantees for the people, was about the rights of other things like
militias. I just have a hard time buying into the idea the Bill of
Rights was intended as anything but specific protections for the people.
When it came to guns though it wasn't about that. Really? That's just
hard for me to accept. If the militias question was so important why
didn't they just put it in the Constitution itself? Does the militia
question sound like something that belongs along with a list of the
people's fundamental protections against government intrusion?
>> Questions about the original intent, or the post 14th Amendment changes
>> aside I still see the main point being a simple one. Maybe it's just me
>> but I don't see a sentence as short as the 2nd Amendment as being terribly
>> difficult to understand. I thought I understood it 40 years ago.
>
> You probably were wrong. See above. As you've repeated over and over again
> through this thread, you do see that the sentence meant something different
> in the context of the Constitutional authority held by the federal
> government in the 18th century. It means something different now, or at
> least we believe it does. The original intent is not the only thing it
> "means" now. What it does "mean" now is the point of contention, for all of
> these years.
Since I'm not bright enough to understand what the 2nd Amendment means
who exactly is? If someone like me, with 20 years of education, can't
comprehend what Madison was getting at with that one sentence then
something is rotten in Denmark. This is an Occam's Razor situation. The
simplest meaning is probably right. But say it's beyond my
understanding. How about you tell me what the thing means. Not in
context or anything else. Just tell me what that sentence means. I'm
betting your understanding of it is no different than mine. Forget about
the context just say what the sentence was meant to convey to the reader.
>> It hasn't become any more difficult over time either. It still means the
>> citizens have the right to gun ownership and the government can't disarm
>> the citizen without a good deal of due process.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> So far, all it means is that the federal government can't disarm citizens.
> If it's incorporated under McDonald, it will mean something different. But
> the incorporation is not automatic, under law or under any valid logic. The
> implications of the 14th in relation to the 2nd still has to be adjudicated,
> because the 14th says nothing about the RKBA being a fundamental right, and
> it says nothing about the application of it over the heads of the states.
> And when the 2nd was written, the idea wouldn't have crossed anyone's mind.
> There was no Constitutional authority even to question it.
>
Well, they better get on their damn horse and get the thing incorporated
under the 14th. It's the right thing to do and most people agree as
well. Like everything else that has been incorporated they fought about
it first then they did it. This will happen too but, my god, do they
have to be so god damn slow? I'm seeing eventual guarantee of RKBA for
all Americans everywhere, and maybe even nationwide right to carry too.
But, man oh man, do these legal issues take forever to conclude, or what?
Hawke
Ed Huntress
>
I'm going to avoid point-by-point responses here because the thread has
become bloated, and we're going back over the same issues again and again.
FWIW, the problems in reading the "meaning" of the 2nd today have nothing to
do with it's "intent." As we've discussed ad nauseam, there could be no
original intent relating to independent, individual rights -- because the
federal government had no authority to do so at the time, prior to the
Reconstruction Amendments. So the problem we have with it today is the
result of this change; at the time of the signing, only the states had
authorities that were not expressly granted to the federal government. And
the states had (and still have) a completely free hand to do what they want
concerning gun rights, with the possible exception of disarming their
citizens for the purpose of disabling the militia and thus making it
unavailable for call-up by the feds. We didn't get into that, but it was
either Presser or Cruikshank, I think, that made that point.
Most people read the 2nd to be "simple" and absolutely clear in its support
of their position. That applies no matter what their position is. <g> Which
should tell you that anyone who thinks it's simple is delusional.
We'll soon have the McDonald case to enlighten us further about how the
Court is going to deal with the several remaining issues. Remember that the
Heller decision was 5:4; it would take only one Justice to think differently
about incorporation versus the meaning of the 2nd to the federal government,
and the result could go the other way. I don't think that it will, but
listen to the orals to see what's said about the logical conundrum of
guaranteeing the security of a state militia, and then turning around and
telling the state it's subject to federal authority regarding the gun rights
of its citizens. We don't know if all five of those Justices bought the
self-defense argument or not. All they needed was the militia argument to
agree with the majority on Heller, and the militia argument gets shaky when
you talk about incorporating the right over the heads of the states.
There are many more things we could discuss but they won't get us anywhere.
I hope they get an airing in McDonald; they may already be in the amicus
briefs, and there are a lot of them to read, as there were with Heller. I
made it through all of them for that case but I don't think I'll make it
through this stack.
--
Ed Huntress
RD (The Sandman)
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CD3838ED...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
>> news:4b12da41$0$4989$607e...@cv.net:
>>
>
> I hope you don't mind, but this is getting unweildy and I'm going to
> cut it down to your current responses concerning our disagreement
> about Court doctrine.
>
> <snip>
Mind? I agree with your decision. ;)
--
RD (The Sandman)
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CD3838ED...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
>> news:4b12da41$0$4989$607e...@cv.net:
>>
>
> I hope you don't mind, but this is getting unweildy and I'm going to
> cut it down to your current responses concerning our disagreement
> about Court doctrine.
Mind? Not at all, I agree with that.
I understand that.....but remember the list is only of the USSC cases
that mention the right to keep and bear and whether or not they also
include the prefatory clause. No more....no less.
Fair enough.
> Let's settle something here. We're talking about Doctrine. See the top
> of this post. That's what I said, and then you said that "including
> all the words" is NOT part of doctrine.
And I don't think it is at least as far as mention of it.
> But it is. In the first place, court doctrines don't come from obiter
> dicta (most of your examples, so far) or from dissenting opinions,
> unless they're ensconsed in the majority decision of *another*, later
> case. This particular doctrine is one of the longest-standing in
> Supreme Court jurisprudence and it comes from one of the first cases
> heard by the Court, which I'll cite at the end of this.
I'll stand corrected.
>>>> Now, to be fair, the prefatory clause was cited in:
>>>>
>>>> Presser v Illinois - 1886
>>>> US v Schwimmer - 1929
>>>> US v Miller - 1939
>>>> Adams v Williams - 1972
>>>> Lewis v US - 1980
>>>> Printz/Mack v US - 1997
>>>> DC v Heller - 2008
>>>>
>>>> Bottom line.....
>>>>
>>>> Prefatory clause cited - 7
>>>> Prefatory clause not cited - 23
>>>>
>>>> Seems the Supreme Court hasn't considered that prefatory clause to
>>>> be essential to the meaning of the main clause.
>>>
>>> 'Seems you picked up a bunch of crap online, from someone who
>>> doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground. d8-)
>>
>> Not if you revisit the subject of the list. It was simply one where
>> the right to keep and bear arms was mentioned but the prefatory
>> clause usually wasn't.
>
> That's not what you said it was. I said "Stevens' comment that
> decisions must include consideration of *all* of the words is equally
> true, and closer to standard S.C. doctrine." To which you responded,
> "Actually, no, it isn't. Here is a list of some cases:"
And in those cases, more often than not the right to keep and bear is
mentioned without reference to the prefatory clause....as I noted.
> Then you cite your list, presumably, from what you said above, as
> examples in which you claim that the doctrine was not what I said it
> was.
I am stating that whenever the right to keep and bear arms is cited or
quoted in a Supreme Court case, the prefatory clause more often than not
is not cited along with it. Almost like two separate thoughts. Now, you
and I both agree that the right to keep and bear arms bears no
relationship to militia service. Heller sees that also.
The Harlan quote from Poe is famous and frequently quoted; how
> many times, besides Albright and Planned Parenthood, are you counting
> the same quote, over and over again, and counting it as another
> "example" each time?
Some others do the same or misattribute a cite from one case as belonging
to another.....anyway...that is not offered as an excuse. As I said
above, I stand corrected.
> Sheesh. RD, you are changing what you said, and you've produced a list
> that appears to be from someone not as careful as you, because I don't
> believe you would have compiled that nonsense on your own. For
> example, the "Scott v. Sanford" case actually is "Dred Scott v.
> Sandford," the worst case in US history and definitely NOT doctrinal
> in any sense.
Agreed.
> The Presser case is mostly *about* the militia. And the
> Trono case, which cites only what the Phillipine law does *not*
> contain, not commenting upon US law. And then the obiter dicta, and
> dissents...how many are such examples?
>
> I'm not going around on this; the list is a waste of time, and bogus.
Again, agreed.
> FWIW at this point, THIS is the doctrine, and it has been since 1803:
>
> "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended
> to be without effect." Marbury v. Madison, (1803).
I agree with this although I disagree with many on what that prefatory
clause in the 2A really means and what its weight is.
> And with that, I must get on to something else. We'll all have more
> fun when the McDonald case is heard, and we'll doubtless discuss the
> orals then, after the briefs are all in and we have a chance to read
> some of them.
See ya' then.
RD (The Sandman)
>
> "Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
> news:hf299s$g6a$1...@aioe.org...
>>
>
> I'm going to avoid point-by-point responses here because the thread
> has become bloated, and we're going back over the same issues again
> and again.
>
> FWIW, the problems in reading the "meaning" of the 2nd today have
> nothing to do with it's "intent." As we've discussed ad nauseam, there
> could be no original intent relating to independent, individual rights
> -- because the federal government had no authority to do so at the
> time, prior to the Reconstruction Amendments.
I think that there was no reason it couldn't be an individual right
(after all, Heller just declared that it was) but that it did not have
application to the states until *possibly* the Reconstruction Amendments
(which Heller did not address).
> So the problem we have
> with it today is the result of this change; at the time of the
> signing, only the states had authorities that were not expressly
> granted to the federal government. And the states had (and still have)
> a completely free hand to do what they want concerning gun rights,
> with the possible exception of disarming their citizens for the
> purpose of disabling the militia and thus making it unavailable for
> call-up by the feds. We didn't get into that, but it was either
> Presser or Cruikshank, I think, that made that point.
Presser in 1886.
> Most people read the 2nd to be "simple" and absolutely clear in its
> support of their position. That applies no matter what their position
> is. <g> Which should tell you that anyone who thinks it's simple is
> delusional.
The way it is written is vague and to this point, there has been very
little in the way of clearing it up. Miller was vaguely written and many
do not really know what Miller was about, Heller didn't address the issue
with the states and only discarded the militia statement from
consideration as a limiter.
> We'll soon have the McDonald case to enlighten us further about how
> the Court is going to deal with the several remaining issues. Remember
> that the Heller decision was 5:4; it would take only one Justice to
> think differently about incorporation versus the meaning of the 2nd to
> the federal government, and the result could go the other way.
If I understand correctly what you are saying, that would not affect the
right as being collective or individual but would simply let it stand as
it is today (applicable to the feds only) or apply also to the states.
> I don't
> think that it will, but listen to the orals to see what's said about
> the logical conundrum of guaranteeing the security of a state militia,
> and then turning around and telling the state it's subject to federal
> authority regarding the gun rights of its citizens.
As long as those gun rights remain as they are (or were), I don't see
where that would affect state militias. As it exists today, in many
state constitutions, the right to bear arms is two fold. One is to
protect the state and the other is to protect oneself. My state
constitution is that way.
> We don't know if
> all five of those Justices bought the self-defense argument or not.
> All they needed was the militia argument to agree with the majority on
> Heller, and the militia argument gets shaky when you talk about
> incorporating the right over the heads of the states.
>
> There are many more things we could discuss but they won't get us
> anywhere. I hope they get an airing in McDonald; they may already be
> in the amicus briefs, and there are a lot of them to read, as there
> were with Heller. I made it through all of them for that case but I
> don't think I'll make it through this stack.
It is a tall one.
pyotr filipivich
about Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:13:00 -0800 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>
>2)Firearms: The adjustment of a multi-barrel firearm (e.g., a double
>barrelled shotgun) so that the barrels shoot to the same point-of-aim.
>If such a gun (a double-barrelled shotgun or a three barreled
>"drilling")
>needs to be "re-regulated".
I just watched a video clip of a guy demonstrating a new 14" short
barrels shotgun. He made just this observation, that a sawn off
shotgun does not have the barrels regulated, so one's shooting pattern
will be off depending on which barrel you use.
He then demonstrated that , yes this short barrel shotgun does
point nicely, patterns well, and can even be fired one handed. Okay,
so he's in a wheelchair with arms like thighs.
pyotr
Ah, here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6EoYWJuuoE
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
Demon Buddha
> Let the Record show that Gu
> I just watched a video clip of a guy demonstrating a new 14" short
> barrels shotgun. He made just this observation, that a sawn off
> shotgun does not have the barrels regulated, so one's shooting pattern
> will be off depending on which barrel you use.
Given the uses to which short-barreled shotguns are generally put,
there is no need to regulate them. Express rifles, OTOH, are a
different story.
> He then demonstrated that , yes this short barrel shotgun does
> point nicely, patterns well, and can even be fired one handed. Okay,
> so he's in a wheelchair with arms like thighs.
I've shot my 12 ga. coach gun one-handed several times. No big deal.
pyotr filipivich
or about Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:36:24 -0500 did write, type or otherwise
cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:
>pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> Let the Record show that Gu
>
>> I just watched a video clip of a guy demonstrating a new 14" short
>> barrels shotgun. He made just this observation, that a sawn off
>> shotgun does not have the barrels regulated, so one's shooting pattern
>> will be off depending on which barrel you use.
>
> Given the uses to which short-barreled shotguns are generally put,
>there is no need to regulate them. Express rifles, OTOH, are a
>different story.
I'm just reporting what he said. His shot gun is regulated - in a
manner which has nothing to do with either the US or Canadian
Government.
>
>> He then demonstrated that , yes this short barrel shotgun does
>> point nicely, patterns well, and can even be fired one handed. Okay,
>> so he's in a wheelchair with arms like thighs.
>
> I've shot my 12 ga. coach gun one-handed several times. No big deal.
-
pyotr filipivich
"Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est. "
Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD
(A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)