2nd Amendment; is it clear?

[saxitoxin]

If you are arguing it means you have a right to own a semi-automatic weapon, it also means you have the right to own a tank...or, that the type of weapon can absolutely "be infringed" making the law ambiguous.

I'm not TGD, however, this - also - already seems to have been addressed ...

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever, and for any purpose whatsoever. That the sort of weapons protected are those "in common use" at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of unusual weapons.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290

[thegreekdog]

If you are arguing it means you have a right to own a semi-automatic weapon, it also means you have the right to own a tank...or, that the type of weapon can absolutely "be infringed" making the law ambiguous.

I'm not TGD, however, this - also - already seems to have been addressed ...

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever, and for any purpose whatsoever. That the sort of weapons protected are those "in common use" at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of unusual weapons.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290

The idea that a right is not unlimited is also applicable to other amendments and rights, like, for example, the First Amendment. Is that amendment ambiguous or vague?

[saxitoxin]

Are you really suggesting, that the amendment allows me to own an army, made up of arms, because my right to own arms, shall not be infringed?

This seems to already be anticipated and addressed through state law, for example ...

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp ... t/2/26.htm

I should not have said own an army, but your point is valid, though needing state laws to define the amendment could suggest it was not fully clear.

It's not a definition of the amendment, it's an enactment - by a subsidiary polity (state government) - of responsible laws consistent with the text of the amendment. There is no federal law against murder. And yet, murder is not legal in the United States; the constituent polities have enacted laws consistent with the constitution that proscribe homicide.

[AAFitz]

Okay, let's go through this in more detail.

From the late 18th century until 2008, the Second Amendment was intepreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and most scholars as being a collective right.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment was both a collective right and an individual right.

The Second Amendment is not ambiguous. The case law around the Second Amendment is ambiguous, but only because of the Heller decision. However, because the U.S. Supreme Court is the be-all and end-all of decisions regarding the Constitution, the law of the land, right now, which is not ambiguous, is that the Second Amendment grants both a collective and individual right to bear arms.

What type of arms does it say you can bear? All arms, or is there some point where some arms are too dangerous for an individual to own?

Also, how many arms can one own. Is there a point where someone owns so many arms that they become a danger to society, if not national security at large?

Are you really suggesting, that the amendment allows me to own an army, made up of any type of arms, because my right to own arms, shall not be infringed?

Either, it is unambiguous, and I can own any kind or any number of arms and reason is irrelevant, or there is some debatable point where I exceed that right, which has not been defined in that amendment, which means there is ambiguity inherent in the entire amendment itself....and honestly....obviously so.

Which legal scholars, attorneys, and judges asked those questions from 1789 to 2008?

The answer is none, but, in any event, you've misconstrued what the debate is about the amendment is now. Is the amendment a collective right or an individual right? It has nothing to do with the types of arms, number of arms, etc.

No, the question is is the amendment clear? And as it applies to a certain type of weapon, it could not be more on point.

Further, Im simply asking your opinion on the subject, and it seems you are evading it completely.

If you are arguing it means you have a right to own a semi-automatic weapon, it also means you have the right to own a tank...or, that the type of weapon can absolutely "be infringed" making the law ambiguous.

Either way, just answer the question. Does the amendment allow you to own any kind of gun you want? Its a simple question.

You're missing the point entirely. The amendment was not written to allow you to own certain types of weapons and not others, hence the idea of the collective right. It was not meant as an individual right to own weapons, it was meant as a collective right to form militias that were armed.

Look, before 2008, there was NEVER a Supreme Court case dealing with interpreting the extent of what weapons people could purchase. This is not hard to understand; there was no legal ambiguity. The Court was clear that the amendment granted a collective right for individuals to gather and form militias to fight a tyrannical government.

Pre-2008 I would have answered that question as follows: The amendment clearly does not allow you to own whatever weapons you want.

Post-2008 I would now answer the question as follows: You can own any weapon you want with some exceptions and the Supreme Court may even decide in favor of you owning a rocket launcher, but they punted in 2008.

Again, Im not missing shit, you just want to have a different argument.

My questions are not concerned with the right to bear arms, which is quite clear, but as to how that amendment can be applied to various types of weapons.

The right to bear arms is clear enough, and whether its for the militia or for jacking off is not my concern. My point is to show that the type of weapon that can be owned absolutely can be infringed, and obviously so, so arguing there is a 2nd amendment right to own a semiautomatic rifle, is ridiculous, unless you similarly agree your right to own a stinger missle is also guaranteed which your are ridiculously arguing...and obviously, for corrupt reason.

that semi really does the trick for you, doesn't it?

[AAFitz]

Are you really suggesting, that the amendment allows me to own an army, made up of arms, because my right to own arms, shall not be infringed?

This seems to already be anticipated and addressed through state law, for example ...

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp ... t/2/26.htm

I should not have said own an army, but your point is valid, though needing state laws to define the amendment could suggest it was not fully clear.

It's not a definition of the amendment, it's an enactment - by a subsidiary polity (state government) - of responsible laws consistent with the text of the amendment. There is no federal law against murder. And yet, murder is not legal in the United States; the constituent polities have enacted laws consistent with the constitution that proscribe homicide.

And again, one could suggest that means it was not fully clear.

[saxitoxin]

Are you really suggesting, that the amendment allows me to own an army, made up of arms, because my right to own arms, shall not be infringed?

This seems to already be anticipated and addressed through state law, for example ...

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp ... t/2/26.htm

I should not have said own an army, but your point is valid, though needing state laws to define the amendment could suggest it was not fully clear.

It's not a definition of the amendment, it's an enactment - by a subsidiary polity (state government) - of responsible laws consistent with the text of the amendment. There is no federal law against murder. And yet, murder is not legal in the United States; the constituent polities have enacted laws consistent with the constitution that proscribe homicide.

And again, one could suggest that means it was not fully clear.

One could suggest anything one wants, but that conclusion - specifically - is bereft of logic.

[AAFitz]

If you are arguing it means you have a right to own a semi-automatic weapon, it also means you have the right to own a tank...or, that the type of weapon can absolutely "be infringed" making the law ambiguous.

I'm not TGD, however, this - also - already seems to have been addressed ...

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever, and for any purpose whatsoever. That the sort of weapons protected are those "in common use" at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of unusual weapons.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290

It is hardly "addressed" since the definition of the type of weapon is hardly clear, especially when trying to determine if its illegal to ban a semi-automatic rifle for example, which absolutely could be decided to not be in common use, and could be considered unusual....much like fucking a goat may be considered unusual, even if everyone starts doing it.

[AAFitz]

Are you really suggesting, that the amendment allows me to own an army, made up of arms, because my right to own arms, shall not be infringed?

This seems to already be anticipated and addressed through state law, for example ...

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp ... t/2/26.htm

I should not have said own an army, but your point is valid, though needing state laws to define the amendment could suggest it was not fully clear.

It's not a definition of the amendment, it's an enactment - by a subsidiary polity (state government) - of responsible laws consistent with the text of the amendment. There is no federal law against murder. And yet, murder is not legal in the United States; the constituent polities have enacted laws consistent with the constitution that proscribe homicide.

And again, one could suggest that means it was not fully clear.

One could suggest anything one wants, but that would be patently ludicrous.

Well that is a point you have proven time and again.

[thegreekdog]

Again, Im not missing shit, you just want to have a different argument.

My questions are not concerned with the right to bear arms, which is quite clear, but as to how that amendment can be applied to various types of weapons.

The right to bear arms is clear enough, and whether its for the militia or for jacking off is not my concern. My point is to show that the type of weapon that can be owned absolutely can be infringed, and obviously so, so arguing there is a 2nd amendment right to own a semiautomatic rifle, is ridiculous, unless you similarly agree your right to own a stinger missle is also guaranteed which your are ridiculously arguing...and obviously, for corrupt reason.

that semi really does the trick for you, doesn't it?

From 1789 to 2008, a government ban on semiautomatic rifles was constitutional.
From 2008 to 2013, a government ban on semiautomatic rifles might be constitutional.

And it was "assault rifles," not "semi-automatic rifles" that did the trick for me. Assault rifles are illegal. Semi-automatic files are, right now, legal. I would note that there is no bill before Congress banning all semi-automatic rifles, just some of the scary looking ones... the ones that look like assault rifles.

I don't want to have a different argument. There is no ambiguity in the amendment; there is ambiguity on how the Supreme Court will interpret the amendment. And that is the difference between a strict constructionist (me and Justice Thomas) and someone who believes the Constitution is a living, breathing document that can be interpreted differently depending on the time, place, and person doing the interpreting (our current Supreme Court except for Justice Thomas). Because the Supreme Court is filled with a bunch of lawyers who aren't strict constructionists, we now have ambiguity.

[BigBallinStalin]

Perhaps I can clarify this misunderstanding with a statement:

"This ongoing debate is full of stupid."


Is the above statement clear?

AAFitz and Sym seem to be saying that the above statement is vague because it does not address a specific post in this thread.

Others seem to be saying that the above statement is clear because 'it is what it is'. This ongoing debate is, indeed, full of stupid.

[thegreekdog]

Perhaps I can clarify this misunderstanding with a statement:

"This ongoing debate is full of stupid."


Is the above statement clear?

AAFitz and Sym seem to be saying that the above statement is vague because it does not address a specific post in this thread.

Others seem to be saying that the above statement is clear because 'it is what it is'. This ongoing debate is, indeed, full of stupid.

Thanks. Now let me build off of this.

"This ongoing debate is full of stupid" is the statement (the BBS Amendment).

Now, I'll be the Supreme Court. From 1789 to 2008, we held that the BBS Amendment meant that the debate was full of stupid. In 2008, with an activist court, we held that the BBS Amendment meant that the debate was full of stupid, but also that the debate was full of idiocy, even though the BBS Amendment clearly doesn't say anything about idiocy.

[GabonX]

Not only is the Second Amendment clear, but there are countless writings and documents written by the framers which clarify their intent. The Supreme Court has upheld the individual right to bear arms.

Even if the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment was for some reason the only item on the Bill of Rights that didn't guarantee a right to the people (a completely ignorant proposition), and instead that it only guaranteed that the militia could be armed, the argument still falls flat on it's face because we have a legal definition of what the militia is in this country:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt


Even if the Second Amendment did not convey an individuals right to bear arms (it clearly does) according to the legal definition of what constitutes the "militia" in this country, all able bodied males between 17 and 45 who are citizens have a right not just to keep, but to bear arms.

[AAFitz]

Perhaps I can clarify this misunderstanding with a statement:

"This ongoing debate is full of stupid."


Is the above statement clear?

AAFitz and Sym seem to be saying that the above statement is vague because it does not address a specific post in this thread.

Others seem to be saying that the above statement is clear because 'it is what it is'. This ongoing debate is, indeed, full of stupid.

Well, the amount of stupidity is certainly unclear, but you certainly added to it. Good job!

Im sorry if my desire to discuss the types of weapons that are allowed by the 2nd amendment strikes you as stupid, but I contend that your failure to see the relevance, could not be more stupid, and more-so, as you did so with typical arrogance.

[thegreekdog]

Not only is the Second Amendment clear, but there are countless writings and documents written by the framers which clarify their intent. The Supreme Court has upheld the individual right to bear arms.

Even if the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment was for some reason the only item on the Bill of Rights that didn't guarantee a right to the people (a completely ignorant proposition), and instead that it only guaranteed that the militia could be armed, the argument still falls flat on it's face because we have a legal definition of what the militia is in this country:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt


Even if the Second Amendment did not convey an individuals right to bear arms (it clearly does) according to the legal definition of what constitutes the "militia" in this country, all able bodied males between 17 and 45 who are citizens have a right not just to keep, but to bear arms.

Please provide links to a few of these countless documents.
Please also provide a case other than DC v. Heller where the US Supreme Court referred to the Second Amendment was an individual right.

[kentington]

Are you really suggesting, that the amendment allows me to own an army, made up of arms, because my right to own arms, shall not be infringed?

This seems to already be anticipated and addressed through state law, for example ...

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp ... t/2/26.htm

I should not have said own an army, but your point is valid, though needing state laws to define the amendment could suggest it was not fully clear.

It's not a definition of the amendment, it's an enactment - by a subsidiary polity (state government) - of responsible laws consistent with the text of the amendment. There is no federal law against murder. And yet, murder is not legal in the United States; the constituent polities have enacted laws consistent with the constitution that proscribe homicide.

And again, one could suggest that means it was not fully clear.

I believe it was fully clear at the time it was written.
I think you don't like the amendment and you think it is a horrible idea, which is different than whether it is clear or not.

I don't think that this amendment puts any limit on the amount or type of arms. Whether it is a good idea or not is, again, a different topic.

[saxitoxin]

If you are arguing it means you have a right to own a semi-automatic weapon, it also means you have the right to own a tank...or, that the type of weapon can absolutely "be infringed" making the law ambiguous.

I'm not TGD, however, this - also - already seems to have been addressed ...

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever, and for any purpose whatsoever. That the sort of weapons protected are those "in common use" at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of unusual weapons.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290

It is hardly "addressed" since the definition of the type of weapon is hardly clear

The type of weapons was absolutely addressed elsewhere in the opinion. It's not the job of the court to produce an exhaustive list of weapons - only a guide for the limits of a statute. That guide can generally be construed as ...

In the year 2012, tanks and stinger missiles are "not in common use" - therefore - statutes can be enacted to prohibit them. In the year 2012, shotguns are "in common use" - therefore - statutes cannot be enacted to prohibit them.

In the Aymette decision, the Supreme Court of Tennessee considered an act of James II in 1670, which prohibited Protestants from owning weapons, and noted that a subsequent Act of Parliament revoking this effectively returned the state of the common law to one in which the display of exotic weapons in public was prohibited. This prohibition on unusual weapons can be considered in applying the 2nd Amendment.

[patches70]

(our current Supreme Court except for Justice Thomas).

Funny you should mention Thomas. You should probably look up-
McDonald v. Chicago
and see what Justice Thomas had to say about that. He tied the 2nd amendment to the 14th, that no state shall make or enforce any law which abridges the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the US.

In the case, McDonald legally owned a couple of shotguns but wanted to buy a handgun. He complained that gangs were running rampant in his neighborhood, drugs and violence prevalent. The shotguns were used for hunting and were not adequate in McDonald's opinion, to protect himself in the event of a robbery or break in. His home had been broken into many times.

Chicago law stated that all handguns had to be registered but Chicago refused to issue any registrations because of the hand gun ban. Thus, McDonald could not legally purchase a handgun.

He won, and Thomas' reasons for siding with McDonald are not what you'd expect.-

Referring to the disarming of blacks during the post-Reconstruction era, Thomas wrote: "It was the 'duty' of white citizen 'patrols to search negro houses and other suspected places for firearms.' If they found any firearms, the patrols were to take the offending slave or free black 'to the nearest justice of the peace' whereupon he would be 'severely punished.' " Never again, Thomas says.

He ripped the gun grabbers and went on to say-

"Militias such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camellia, the White Brotherhood, the Pale Faces and the '76 Association spread terror among blacks. . . . The use of firearms for self-defense was often the only way black citizens could protect themselves from mob violence."

He is advocating self defense of individuals against the mob.

Please also provide a case other than DC v. Heller where the US Supreme Court referred to the Second Amendment was an individual right.

From the point of view of Thomas, it's clear that he views the 2nd amendment as an individual right.

[thegreekdog]

Actually, Justice Thomas does not think it is an individual right, if I remember that case correctly. I'll have to look at everything he wrote first, which may take me a while considering how long-winded he is.

[patches70]

Actually, Justice Thomas does not think it is an individual right, if I remember that case correctly. I'll have to look at everything he wrote first, which may take me a while considering how long-winded he is.

He states clearly that the right to keep and bear arms comes as a privilege of American Citizenship. If you are an American Citizen you have the right to keep and bear arms. Not a thing to do with belonging to any militia, or even having any other reason for it other than being an American Citizen.

Every individual American Citizen has a right to keep and bear arms. But by all means, look it up. You'll see.

[BigBallinStalin]

Perhaps I can clarify this misunderstanding with a statement:

"This ongoing debate is full of stupid."


Is the above statement clear?

AAFitz and Sym seem to be saying that the above statement is vague because it does not address a specific post in this thread.

Others seem to be saying that the above statement is clear because 'it is what it is'. This ongoing debate is, indeed, full of stupid.

Well, the amount of stupidity is certainly unclear, but you certainly added to it. Good job!

Im sorry if my desire to discuss the types of weapons that are allowed by the 2nd amendment strikes you as stupid, but I contend that your failure to see the relevance, could not be more stupid, and more-so, as you did so with typical arrogance.

You certainly added a lot to a concise statement. Perhaps therein lies the source of your misunderstanding.

[GabonX]

Please also provide a case other than DC v. Heller where the US Supreme Court referred to the Second Amendment was an individual right.

So basically:

Please ignore the case where the Supreme Court ruled on the issue but find a case where they ruled on the issue...

Dumb

Please provide links to a few of these countless documents.

No problem,


No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferso ... -quotation

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/in ... of_liberty


The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_46.html

This one is downright prophetic...
I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected.
George Mason
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Mason

The great object is, that every man be armed.
Patrick Henry
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... 12s27.html

Here's some more:
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/99/liberty.html


It's quite clear that the framers intended for the general population to not only be armed, but also trained and knowledgeable in the use of fire arms. Indeed, if we are to follow the vision laid out by George Washington, gun safety and function is a topic which should be taught in every public school:
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/ref/blfirstsou.htm


There are many more documents and quotations which clarify that the framers intended to preserve the right of the people to own, train with, and use arms to prevent an unjust government from gaining power.

The argument that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to own fire arms is ridiculous, and those that support it are stupid or lying. This is black and white, there is no middle ground. If a person chooses to lie about this and is not a member of the elite, they are both stupid and lying. Such individuals need to remove themselves from the democratic process before they start getting people hurt...

Some people like to say that the Second Amendment refers primarily to the militia clause, but they fail to acknowledge that the term "militia" as it was used by the framers in revolutionary times referred to "everybody," or more specifically "all free men."

The term "militia" is currently defined legally as all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 as I've pointed out earlier.

[AAFitz]

Perhaps I can clarify this misunderstanding with a statement:

"This ongoing debate is full of stupid."


Is the above statement clear?

AAFitz and Sym seem to be saying that the above statement is vague because it does not address a specific post in this thread.

Others seem to be saying that the above statement is clear because 'it is what it is'. This ongoing debate is, indeed, full of stupid.

Well, the amount of stupidity is certainly unclear, but you certainly added to it. Good job!

Im sorry if my desire to discuss the types of weapons that are allowed by the 2nd amendment strikes you as stupid, but I contend that your failure to see the relevance, could not be more stupid, and more-so, as you did so with typical arrogance.

You certainly added a lot to a concise statement. Perhaps therein lies the source of your misunderstanding.

Or perhaps you are too stupid to understand the complexity of the situation.

[BigBallinStalin]

Perhaps I can clarify this misunderstanding with a statement:

"This ongoing debate is full of stupid."


Is the above statement clear?

AAFitz and Sym seem to be saying that the above statement is vague because it does not address a specific post in this thread.

Others seem to be saying that the above statement is clear because 'it is what it is'. This ongoing debate is, indeed, full of stupid.

Well, the amount of stupidity is certainly unclear, but you certainly added to it. Good job!

Im sorry if my desire to discuss the types of weapons that are allowed by the 2nd amendment strikes you as stupid, but I contend that your failure to see the relevance, could not be more stupid, and more-so, as you did so with typical arrogance.

You certainly added a lot to a concise statement. Perhaps therein lies the source of your misunderstanding.

Or perhaps you are too stupid to understand the complexity of the situation.

Your sentence is way too vague for me.

Just imagine the later Amendments to it and that ambiguity will skyrocket!

[thegreekdog]

Please also provide a case other than DC v. Heller where the US Supreme Court referred to the Second Amendment was an individual right.

So basically:

Please ignore the case where the Supreme Court ruled on the issue but find a case where they ruled on the issue...

Dumb

Please provide links to a few of these countless documents.

No problem,


No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferso ... -quotation

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/in ... of_liberty


The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_46.html

This one is downright prophetic...
I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected.
George Mason
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Mason

The great object is, that every man be armed.
Patrick Henry
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... 12s27.html

Here's some more:
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/99/liberty.html


It's quite clear that the framers intended for the general population to not only be armed, but also trained and knowledgeable in the use of fire arms. Indeed, if we are to follow the vision laid out by George Washington, gun safety and function is a topic which should be taught in every public school:
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/ref/blfirstsou.htm


There are many more documents and quotations which clarify that the framers intended to preserve the right of the people to own, train with, and use arms to prevent an unjust government from gaining power.

The argument that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to own fire arms is ridiculous, and those that support it are stupid or lying. This is black and white, there is no middle ground. If a person chooses to lie about this and is not a member of the elite, they are both stupid and lying. Such individuals need to remove themselves from the democratic process before they start getting people hurt...

Some people like to say that the Second Amendment refers primarily to the militia clause, but they fail to acknowledge that the term "militia" as it was used by the framers in revolutionary times referred to "everybody," or more specifically "all free men."

The term "militia" is currently defined legally as all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 as I've pointed out earlier.

From 1789 to 2008, the US Supreme Court never held that the Second Amendment was an individual right. Furthermore, none of the quotes above (except for the more stylized versions, like water the tree of liberty) indicate that this is an individual right. The Madison and Mason quotes are directly on point in this regard, referring not to an indiidual's right to have a gun to go hunt, but intsead refer to the right of people to organize as a militia. I agree that the Second Amendment is very clear as to what right the citizens of the United States have with respect to being permitted to form an armed and organized militia. I do not agree that the Second Amendment states that Ice T is allowed to carry a MAC-10 so that he can protect himself from burglers.

[patches70]

From 1789 to 2008, the US Supreme Court never held that the Second Amendment was an individual right. Furthermore, none of the quotes above (except for the more stylized versions, like water the tree of liberty) indicate that this is an individual right. The Madison and Mason quotes are directly on point in this regard, referring not to an indiidual's right to have a gun to go hunt, but intsead refer to the right of people to organize as a militia. I agree that the Second Amendment is very clear as to what right the citizens of the United States have with respect to being permitted to form an armed and organized militia. I do not agree that the Second Amendment states that Ice T is allowed to carry a MAC-10 so that he can protect himself from burglers.

There is no such thing as collective rights. It is a contradiction and is the point Thomas was making in McDonald vs Chicago.

Rights belong to individuals, not groups. An individual cannot lose, or gain, a right by leaving one group and joining another. The concept of collective rights means that rights belong to some but not to others. The 14th amendment goes directly to that matter, that there is no such thing as collective rights. That a state cannot take away the rights of individuals just for the residents of that state.

A group, a collective, can only have the rights that individual members already have.

If militias can legally bear arms then it stands that the individuals can bear arms. The militia cannot have rights that the individuals do not, rather the group has the same rights as each individual. No more, no less.

The simple fact that if you are an American citizen in good standing then you have a right to bear arms. There is no further requirement. You don't need to provide a reason, you don't need to exercise that right but you still have it.

The states thought they could get away with gun bans because the argument goes that the Bill of Rights pertains only to the Federal government. Which is true, the central government is not allowed to make laws that violate the Bill of Rights. But that doesn't give the States the power to negate those rights either, as is written in the 14th amendment, which is what Thomas was talking about.

You can see it far more clearly if you apply that thinking to other amendments. Such as no official religion will be established by the Central government. But this applies to the states equally. Imagine if Texas made a law one day that said the official religion of Texas is Christianity and said that everyone must join a church and everyone non Christian had to pay a tax and that everyone must submit to the State to which church they belong. There would be no question at all that this is clearly a violation of the First amendment, never mind that it wasn't the Central Government making the law.