9th Circuit rules individuals have no right to bear arms

[Silent Method]

Dude, you are lost.

 

[AustinTX]

If it meant that the people could own any sort of arms they wanted, then you'll need to go back and address my points about bio, nuclear, chemical weapons, switch blades, stilletos, some "military"-type assult weapons, etc. which you do not have the right to bear in most cases.

 

[Silent Method]

If it meant that the people could own any sort of arms they wanted, then you'll need to go back and address my points about bio, nuclear, chemical weapons, switch blades, stilletos, some "military"-type assult weapons, etc. which you do not have the right to bear in most cases.

This is a rather narrow point for in the scope of the issue, but very well. "Arms" as cited in the constitution refers directly to the gun, not bio, nuclear, or chemical weapons.

If you wish to discuss this issue further, how about going back and addressing some of my points? Lets start with these:

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals … It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin, October 7, 1789

"The great object is that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …" Richard Henry Lee

 

[AustinTX]

This is a rather narrow point for in the scope of the issue, but very well. "Arms" as cited in the constitution refers directly to the gun, not bio, nuclear, or chemical weapons.

For many other references in the constitution the "meaning" has been updated to take account of changes in technology; e.g. electronic surveilance, wire tapping; what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment has changed with the times.

And automatic weapons? armor piercing bullets? Seems like a well formed malitia of the people would need those. Perhaps, since those are "new", they aren't covered, but that would leave us with just some pretty antiquated rifles that we have the right to bear.

I'll concede everything else, but if any type of "gun" was allowed by the 2nd, why are many types not legal to be owned by the general public?

I'm really not worried by this ruling, because I don't think it will go anywhere; and even if the supreme court were to agree; legislation would be easily passed giving us the right to own certain types of handguns and rifles, similar to what we have now. The USA PATRIOT act is the biggest threat to our personal liberties at the moment, IMO.

 

[collegiateLifter]

. Keep in mind that the malitias were armed by the people in those days (and these days too if you consider taxes ) Therefore, you have the right to join what is now the National Guard if you want to bear arms, in order to protect the free state.

Recall that the Founders distrusted a strong central government. The 2nd amendment was originally meant largely in part, to protect the states and the people, from an oppressive central Gov.

The National gaurd nowadays, being under the control of the President, bears little resemblence to militias of the past, specifically that they were STATE militias in the past.

On another note, if one considers modern warfare, and the ways it has developped, one could make a case about the need for armor piercing bullets, snipers, etc.

 

[Silent Method]

AustinTX, you have chosen not to address the bulk of that which I put forth to refute your concept of the 2nd amendment and the intent of those who drafted it. If you wish to continue with this debate, please address some of the material I have presented in this regard.


In regard to your last post, I redirect you to the intent of the framers of the Constitution. The second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bare weapons. The men who wrote and/or ratified the amendment made it clear that the firearm was the principal weapon of an armed citizen.

You made reference to instances where our interpretation of the meaning of the constitution has been reconsidered to take account of changes in technology. Very good point, as the Constitution is a living document. Nevertheless, the fundamental principals upon which the Constitution rests are meant to remain unchanged.

Examine the fundamental principle behind the second amendment. An armed citizenry is necessary to secure freedom. How does this relate to technology? In the middle ages, the arms with which the individual members of a populace could reasonably be expected to apply effectively in battle may have been the crossbow, mace, or longbow. In colonial America, the musket provided a reasonable weapon with which citizens could engage in battle. Today, would it be reasonable to expect the populace to defend their freedom with muskets?

What about automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets? Would a well-formed militia of the people, one necessary to the security of a free state, need those? Your damn right they would.

You ask that if the 2nd amendment guarantees individuals the right to own these weapons, “why are many types <of guns> not legal to be owned by the general public?” It’s ironic that you then go on to cite the Patriot Act as a threat to our civil liberties. I ask you this simple question. Do you think that the Patriot Act is the first set of laws that may circumvent our rights as afforded by the Constitution?

 

[Silent Method]

Recall that the Founders distrusted a strong central government. The 2nd amendment was originally meant largely in part, to protect the states and the people, from an oppressive central Gov.

Good point, but wouldn't say "largely in part, to protect the states and the people, from an oppressive central Gov."

The truth is the second amendment is quite specifically meant to protect the freedom of the people.

"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."

If you think that the freedom cited in "being necessary to the security of a free state" implies the right to state government, you may be clinically insane. A free state is a free populace. This is why "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The National gaurd nowadays, being under the control of the President, bears little resemblence to militias of the past, specifically that they were STATE militias in the past.

Again, more specifically, they were citizen militias.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …" Richard Henry Lee

On another note, if one considers modern warfare, and the ways it has developped, one could make a case about the need for armor piercing bullets, snipers, etc.

Good point. As a little aside, I find the discussion of armor piercing bullets to be rather silly. Aside from the fact that we are guaranteed arms specifically for warfare, what kind of armor are we talking about? Any number of the most commonly used center-fire cartriges used today will zip right through the bullet-proof vests commonly worn by police officers, and come out the other side. This is nothing new.

 

[bigschweeler]

i think the reason so many democrats/liberals want to ban guns is because they know there are millions of angry gun owners out there, who are fed up with their stupid policies and agenda.

Yeah that's it. Good one old boy.

Do you think it possibly could be due to wanting to ensure that guns don't end up in the wrong hands. I'm all for a person's right to bear arms, but I don't see a problem with a waiting period while a background check is completed. If you have a violent felony on your record, I'm sorry, but you shouldn't have a gun.

Of course that person will probably get a gun anyway, but that fact alone doesn't justify just selling guns to whoever the hell walks into the store.

 

[Silent Method]

Do you think it possibly could be due to wanting to ensure that guns don't end up in the wrong hands. I'm all for a person's right to bear arms, but I don't see a problem with a waiting period while a background check is completed.

If you think this is the extent of the gun control movement, you are sadly mistaken.

 

[bigschweeler]

If you think this is the extent of the gun control movement, you are sadly mistaken.

I don't. But I wish it was. How's that?