Moderator: Community Team
Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote: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.
You and I disagree. I think the case law and the arguments around the 2nd amendment are due to the 2nd amendment being ambiguous. There are grounds for multiple interpretations. I'm not sure why you think it's clear given the number of tight legal fights over how to interpret it, often involving some radical changes in government policy, but hey, I think it's ambiguous, right from the get go.
How did you come up with the theory that it's ambiguous from the get-go, when every major Supreme Court decision and historical document on the subject up until about the year 2000, nearly 300 years of jurisprudence and history, interpreted the Second Amendment one way and only one way?
From the get go? I posted two different versions entered into law when it was put in place.
What was the one way and the only way it was interpreted for nearly 300 years?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184073&start=15#p4019981
Sorry dude, that was not the one way and the only way, nor is it the one way and the only way now.
Lootifer wrote:Either way, to me, the whole militia argument is pretty stupid. Its simply a cover argument in order to make the pro-guns argument more comprehensive. Your government isnt going to turn tyranical and take away your rights, and if they do the battles will never be fought with guns, but instead with media campaigns and court hearings. Likewise you guys spend more than enough on defense such that you will never need a militia to back up your first line of defense.
kentington wrote:"Article the fourth.....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." -as written in the Constitution
This has been discussed before and different people have stated that it is vague or clear. To me it seems clear. I would like to look at this and see what people think.
Funkyterrance wrote:We are a million times more lenient on crime in the US as we were when this amendment was written/passed. I get the impression that we may be barking up the wrong tree; if punishments were stiffer there would be much less reason to "defend ourselves".
Funkyterrance wrote:We are a million times more lenient on crime in the US as we were when this amendment was written/passed. I get the impression that we may be barking up the wrong tree; if punishments were stiffer there would be much less reason to "defend ourselves".
Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:You have heard TGD's argument above, bizarrely claiming that the amendment is not vague because it can be interpreted in many ways.
I am of the opinion that the amendment is vague because it can be interpreted in many different ways.
In the case of this amendment, sometimes these interpretations are polar opposites.
I take umbrage with your characterization of my argument using the word "intepret." The Supreme Court did not interpret the Second Amendment to include an individual right. The Supreme Court decided, for reasons other than the language of the amendment, that the amendment protected an individual right. The Supreme Court ignored the language of the amendment, therefore it could not have interpreted the language of the amendment.
Sooooo.... the legal arguments around the meaning of the second amendment aren't all that clear?
AAFitz wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:We are a million times more lenient on crime in the US as we were when this amendment was written/passed. I get the impression that we may be barking up the wrong tree; if punishments were stiffer there would be much less reason to "defend ourselves".
We really need to imprison more people and keep them in there longer, because we already have the highest rate of imprisonment in the world.
Lootifer wrote:Your government isnt going to turn tyranical
Alexander Hamilton wrote:The supposed utility of a provision of this kind can only be founded on the supposed probability, or at least possibility, of a combination between the executive and the legislative, in some scheme of usurpation. Should this at any time happen, how easy would it be to fabricate pretenses of approaching danger! Indian hostilities, instigated by Spain or Britain, would always be at hand.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa25.htm
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
AAFitz wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:You have heard TGD's argument above, bizarrely claiming that the amendment is not vague because it can be interpreted in many ways.
I am of the opinion that the amendment is vague because it can be interpreted in many different ways.
In the case of this amendment, sometimes these interpretations are polar opposites.
I take umbrage with your characterization of my argument using the word "intepret." The Supreme Court did not interpret the Second Amendment to include an individual right. The Supreme Court decided, for reasons other than the language of the amendment, that the amendment protected an individual right. The Supreme Court ignored the language of the amendment, therefore it could not have interpreted the language of the amendment.
Sooooo.... the legal arguments around the meaning of the second amendment aren't all that clear?
That depends upon your definition of the word, "clear".
Symmetry wrote:AAFitz wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:You have heard TGD's argument above, bizarrely claiming that the amendment is not vague because it can be interpreted in many ways.
I am of the opinion that the amendment is vague because it can be interpreted in many different ways.
In the case of this amendment, sometimes these interpretations are polar opposites.
I take umbrage with your characterization of my argument using the word "intepret." The Supreme Court did not interpret the Second Amendment to include an individual right. The Supreme Court decided, for reasons other than the language of the amendment, that the amendment protected an individual right. The Supreme Court ignored the language of the amendment, therefore it could not have interpreted the language of the amendment.
Sooooo.... the legal arguments around the meaning of the second amendment aren't all that clear?
That depends upon your definition of the word, "clear".
Apparently it means whatever interpretation has won most recently, not, of course, that there was any vague language employed when the politicians got to together and drafted it.
thegreekdog wrote: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.
thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:AAFitz wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:You have heard TGD's argument above, bizarrely claiming that the amendment is not vague because it can be interpreted in many ways.
I am of the opinion that the amendment is vague because it can be interpreted in many different ways.
In the case of this amendment, sometimes these interpretations are polar opposites.
I take umbrage with your characterization of my argument using the word "intepret." The Supreme Court did not interpret the Second Amendment to include an individual right. The Supreme Court decided, for reasons other than the language of the amendment, that the amendment protected an individual right. The Supreme Court ignored the language of the amendment, therefore it could not have interpreted the language of the amendment.
Sooooo.... the legal arguments around the meaning of the second amendment aren't all that clear?
That depends upon your definition of the word, "clear".
Apparently it means whatever interpretation has won most recently, not, of course, that there was any vague language employed when the politicians got to together and drafted it.
Nearly three hundred years before the language suddenly turned ambiguous.
Symmetry wrote:AAFitz wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:You have heard TGD's argument above, bizarrely claiming that the amendment is not vague because it can be interpreted in many ways.
I am of the opinion that the amendment is vague because it can be interpreted in many different ways.
In the case of this amendment, sometimes these interpretations are polar opposites.
I take umbrage with your characterization of my argument using the word "intepret." The Supreme Court did not interpret the Second Amendment to include an individual right. The Supreme Court decided, for reasons other than the language of the amendment, that the amendment protected an individual right. The Supreme Court ignored the language of the amendment, therefore it could not have interpreted the language of the amendment.
Sooooo.... the legal arguments around the meaning of the second amendment aren't all that clear?
That depends upon your definition of the word, "clear".
Apparently it means whatever interpretation has won most recently, not, of course, that there was any vague language employed when the politicians got to together and drafted it.
AAFitz wrote: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?
Arizona Declaration of Rights, Section 26 wrote: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
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
AAFitz wrote:thegreekdog wrote: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.
saxitoxin wrote:AAFitz wrote: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 ...Arizona Declaration of Rights, Section 26 wrote: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
thegreekdog wrote:AAFitz wrote:thegreekdog wrote: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.
AAFitz wrote:thegreekdog wrote:AAFitz wrote:thegreekdog wrote: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.
Symmetry wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:I would say the one passed by congress if I had to choose.
Fair enough, and I hope you see that there's a lack of clarity even from the start.
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
Users browsing this forum: No registered users