Total Posts:84|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Second Amendment

TheTraditionalist
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 5:30:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Do I have the constitutional right to own an rpg? I really want one.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 5:38:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:30:08 PM, TheTraditionalist wrote:
The Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Do I have the constitutional right to own an rpg? I really want one.

Gotta protect yourself from government tanks one way or another.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 5:48:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:30:08 PM, TheTraditionalist wrote:
The Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

No it does not. It gives states the right to maintain militias to provide for the common defense. Readings of the second amendment that believe it affords an individual right to firearm ownership were invented right wing activists in the 1960s in efforts to politicize the then neutral NRA. That the interpretation of the second amendment is popularly understood to confer an individual right to bear arms is both amusing and irrelevant anyway. The overwhelming majority of gun control laws designed to curtail individual ownership of firearms have been found to be constitutional by American courts on all levels, and will continue to be because of the government's compelling interest in public safety.

Do I have the constitutional right to own an rpg? I really want one.

No.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 5:58:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:48:39 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:30:08 PM, TheTraditionalist wrote:
The Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

No it does not. It gives states the right to maintain militias to provide for the common defense. Readings of the second amendment that believe it affords an individual right to firearm ownership were invented right wing activists in the 1960s in efforts to politicize the then neutral NRA. That the interpretation of the second amendment is popularly understood to confer an individual right to bear arms is both amusing and irrelevant anyway. The overwhelming majority of gun control laws designed to curtail individual ownership of firearms have been found to be constitutional by American courts on all levels, and will continue to be because of the government's compelling interest in public safety.

Do I have the constitutional right to own an rpg? I really want one.

No.

^
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 6:41:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:30:08 PM, TheTraditionalist wrote:
The Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Do I have the constitutional right to own an rpg? I really want one.

Go to your local toy store and pick up a copy of The AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide.
Owning a RPG is not a problem in our society.

Now, if your want an RPG Launcher, that's another issue. Though, personally, I think these should be legal. I also think handguns should be illegal, so it's not like I'm gonna get any agreement from anyone in here.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 7:40:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:48:39 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:30:08 PM, TheTraditionalist wrote:
The Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

No it does not. It gives states the right to maintain militias to provide for the common defense. Readings of the second amendment that believe it affords an individual right to firearm ownership were invented right wing activists in the 1960s in efforts to politicize the then neutral NRA. That the interpretation of the second amendment is popularly understood to confer an individual right to bear arms is both amusing and irrelevant anyway. The overwhelming majority of gun control laws designed to curtail individual ownership of firearms have been found to be constitutional by American courts on all levels, and will continue to be because of the government's compelling interest in public safety.

Do I have the constitutional right to own an rpg? I really want one.

No.

The Supreme Court of the United States believes otherwise. If 5 out of 9 judges believe in the 2nd Amendment, then it is law of the land.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 7:44:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:30:08 PM, TheTraditionalist wrote:
The Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Do I have the constitutional right to own an rpg? I really want one.

What do you need a RPG for? For self-defence or for just collections? It is unlikely that you would have sufficient time to launch the attacks if danger ever comes to you. Well, if you do get enough time, you may accidentally blow up the entire street.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 8:40:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 7:40:01 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:48:39 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:30:08 PM, TheTraditionalist wrote:
The Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

No it does not. It gives states the right to maintain militias to provide for the common defense. Readings of the second amendment that believe it affords an individual right to firearm ownership were invented right wing activists in the 1960s in efforts to politicize the then neutral NRA. That the interpretation of the second amendment is popularly understood to confer an individual right to bear arms is both amusing and irrelevant anyway. The overwhelming majority of gun control laws designed to curtail individual ownership of firearms have been found to be constitutional by American courts on all levels, and will continue to be because of the government's compelling interest in public safety.

Do I have the constitutional right to own an rpg? I really want one.

No.

The Supreme Court of the United States believes otherwise. If 5 out of 9 judges believe in the 2nd Amendment, then it is law of the land.

Reread what I said and try to understand it.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 9:01:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Federalist Papers, historical context under which the 2nd Amendment was written, and definitions of the words used in it from the late 1700s make it obvious that the right to bear arms means the right to bear the armament of the standard infantryman.

When RPGs become standard armament for ground soldiers, then you have a right to own an RPG.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 11:28:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 8:40:28 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/27/2013 7:40:01 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:48:39 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:30:08 PM, TheTraditionalist wrote:
The Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

No it does not. It gives states the right to maintain militias to provide for the common defense. Readings of the second amendment that believe it affords an individual right to firearm ownership were invented right wing activists in the 1960s in efforts to politicize the then neutral NRA. That the interpretation of the second amendment is popularly understood to confer an individual right to bear arms is both amusing and irrelevant anyway. The overwhelming majority of gun control laws designed to curtail individual ownership of firearms have been found to be constitutional by American courts on all levels, and will continue to be because of the government's compelling interest in public safety.

Do I have the constitutional right to own an rpg? I really want one.

No.

The Supreme Court of the United States believes otherwise. If 5 out of 9 judges believe in the 2nd Amendment, then it is law of the land.

Reread what I said and try to understand it.

With all due respect, I did not see what is wrong with my understandings. Speaking plainly. Whether the law truly confers the rights upon individual is what The Supreme Court decides.

That is being said, your assertions
"That the interpretation of the second amendment is popularly understood to confer an individual right to bear arms is both amusing and irrelevant anyway"
are based on the second guessing.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 12:19:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 11:28:35 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 1/27/2013 8:40:28 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/27/2013 7:40:01 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:48:39 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:30:08 PM, TheTraditionalist wrote:
The Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

No it does not. It gives states the right to maintain militias to provide for the common defense. Readings of the second amendment that believe it affords an individual right to firearm ownership were invented right wing activists in the 1960s in efforts to politicize the then neutral NRA. That the interpretation of the second amendment is popularly understood to confer an individual right to bear arms is both amusing and irrelevant anyway. The overwhelming majority of gun control laws designed to curtail individual ownership of firearms have been found to be constitutional by American courts on all levels, and will continue to be because of the government's compelling interest in public safety.

Do I have the constitutional right to own an rpg? I really want one.

No.

The Supreme Court of the United States believes otherwise. If 5 out of 9 judges believe in the 2nd Amendment, then it is law of the land.

Reread what I said and try to understand it.

With all due respect, I did not see what is wrong with my understandings. Speaking plainly. Whether the law truly confers the rights upon individual is what The Supreme Court decides.

That is being said, your assertions
"That the interpretation of the second amendment is popularly understood to confer an individual right to bear arms is both amusing and irrelevant anyway"
are based on the second guessing.

Read the debate I have going on this subject right now. The overwhelming bulk of supreme court jurisprudence on this issue either (1) does not recognize an constitutionally sanctioned individual right to possess arms OR (2) accepts the premise that some firearms may be possessed pursuant to state regulation, as this is an aspect of police power (if you don't know what that is, look it up). No carte blanche right to have guns is conferred by the constitution.

What I will concede is that in one recent decision, Scalia has wrote an opinions on this issue that does suggest the court's leaning in favor of examining gun control regulations with a higher level of scrutiny. That does not, however, mean that the constitution gives people the right to keep whatever munitions they please.

But really, it is of no consequence what you think your rights are, when the courts ALMOST ALWAYS side with the government, when people challenge laws designed to curtail individual gun ownership. That, essentially, is the value of your "right" to bear arms: almost none whatsoever whenever legislatures avail themselves to curtail it. So again I say, read what I wrote and try to understand it.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 1:21:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 12:19:40 AM, YYW wrote:
Read the debate I have going on this subject right now. The overwhelming bulk of supreme court jurisprudence on this issue either (1) does not recognize an constitutionally sanctioned individual right to possess arms OR (2) accepts the premise that some firearms may be possessed pursuant to state regulation, as this is an aspect of police power (if you don't know what that is, look it up). No carte blanche right to have guns is conferred by the constitution.

What I will concede is that in one recent decision, Scalia has wrote an opinions on this issue that does suggest the court's leaning in favor of examining gun control regulations with a higher level of scrutiny. That does not, however, mean that the constitution gives people the right to keep whatever munitions they please.

But really, it is of no consequence what you think your rights are, when the courts ALMOST ALWAYS side with the government, when people challenge laws designed to curtail individual gun ownership. That, essentially, is the value of your "right" to bear arms: almost none whatsoever whenever legislatures avail themselves to curtail it. So again I say, read what I wrote and try to understand it.

It doesn't matter what the Supreme Court said in the past. What truly matters is what all those nine justices are saying right now. In his option, Justice Scalia reasoned that right indeed recognized certain boundary. Yet, gun rights was conferred upon the citizens by the founding fathers when they began to envision the future of the United States. It may be unreasonable for one to own a RPG in the name of self-defense. Yet is it unreasonable for one to own a shotgun or handgun or high capacity magazine? If the Supreme Court said so, then it is unreasonable. If someone in the Supreme Court decided otherwise, then it is not. Given the ambiguity of the U.S. Constitution, it seems that no one is sure what the constitution truly means.

What would you say if the Court invalidated he Affordable Care? Is the law constitutional or not? If the court said: No, it is not. Then that is the death penalty for the law. Plain and simple.

Mind sharing your thoughts on the Second Amendment? What does the Second Amendment truly mean?
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 1:28:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 1:21:07 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:19:40 AM, YYW wrote:
Read the debate I have going on this subject right now. The overwhelming bulk of supreme court jurisprudence on this issue either (1) does not recognize an constitutionally sanctioned individual right to possess arms OR (2) accepts the premise that some firearms may be possessed pursuant to state regulation, as this is an aspect of police power (if you don't know what that is, look it up). No carte blanche right to have guns is conferred by the constitution.

What I will concede is that in one recent decision, Scalia has wrote an opinions on this issue that does suggest the court's leaning in favor of examining gun control regulations with a higher level of scrutiny. That does not, however, mean that the constitution gives people the right to keep whatever munitions they please.

But really, it is of no consequence what you think your rights are, when the courts ALMOST ALWAYS side with the government, when people challenge laws designed to curtail individual gun ownership. That, essentially, is the value of your "right" to bear arms: almost none whatsoever whenever legislatures avail themselves to curtail it. So again I say, read what I wrote and try to understand it.

It doesn't matter what the Supreme Court said in the past.

Two words: stare decisis. Learn them and their relevance to US law.

What truly matters is what all those nine justices are saying right now.

Not even close.

In his option, Justice Scalia reasoned that right indeed recognized certain boundary. Yet, gun rights was conferred upon the citizens by the founding fathers when they began to envision the future of the United States.

To provide for the common defense in state (as opposed to federal) militias.

It may be unreasonable for one to own a RPG in the name of self-defense. Yet is it unreasonable for one to own a shotgun or handgun or high capacity magazine?

That depends on which state you live in. Again, police power. Look it up.

If the Supreme Court said so, then it is unreasonable. If someone in the Supreme Court decided otherwise, then it is not.

Indeed. The point is that they side with the government in almost all cases regarding an individual right to bear arms because of the state's compelling interest in preserving public safety. This is functionally at the expense of the notion of an "individual right" to bear arms, and readings of the second amendment which would misinterpret it to confer such a right.

Given the ambiguity of the U.S. Constitution, it seems that no one is sure what the constitution truly means.

Oh, your boy Scalia would take VERY SERIOUS issue with that bold proposal. Although personally, I don't disagree, but even still, I don't care. I am more of a textualist than an original intent guy.

What would you say if the Court invalidated he Affordable Care? Is the law constitutional or not? If the court said: No, it is not. Then that is the death penalty for the law. Plain and simple.

Why yes. That is exactly what I would say, actually.

Mind sharing your thoughts on the Second Amendment? What does the Second Amendment truly mean?

Precisely what the Supreme Court says it means. lol
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 1:41:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008

That was the first time that the Supreme Court actually agreed that the second amendment gave the right for any individual to bear arms.

Before then and, indeed, when it was written, it has had a completely different meaning.

The amendment reads:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The belief most commonly held through history about the meaning of the second amendment until very recently has been that it grants states the right to form their own military. Never was it meant to be used as a right for any individual to own a firearm.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 2:00:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 1:28:16 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/28/2013 1:21:07 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:19:40 AM, YYW wrote:
Read the debate I have going on this subject right now. The overwhelming bulk of supreme court jurisprudence on this issue either (1) does not recognize an constitutionally sanctioned individual right to possess arms OR (2) accepts the premise that some firearms may be possessed pursuant to state regulation, as this is an aspect of police power (if you don't know what that is, look it up). No carte blanche right to have guns is conferred by the constitution.

What I will concede is that in one recent decision, Scalia has wrote an opinions on this issue that does suggest the court's leaning in favor of examining gun control regulations with a higher level of scrutiny. That does not, however, mean that the constitution gives people the right to keep whatever munitions they please.

But really, it is of no consequence what you think your rights are, when the courts ALMOST ALWAYS side with the government, when people challenge laws designed to curtail individual gun ownership. That, essentially, is the value of your "right" to bear arms: almost none whatsoever whenever legislatures avail themselves to curtail it. So again I say, read what I wrote and try to understand it.

It doesn't matter what the Supreme Court said in the past.

Two words: stare decisis. Learn them and their relevance to US law.

What truly matters is what all those nine justices are saying right now.

Not even close.
Why not? Different Justices see the same in different lights. So if today they say: Good, you have the rights. Then you have. If tomorrow they say: No you don't. Then you don't. They overturned the precedents multiple times in the past. Rumour said some are even in preference to over Roe vs. Wade.
So would the past cases relevant? Yes. Do Justices have the right and power to overturn it? Of course. Does it matter whether the past decisions say if one has the right to bear the arm? Perhaps not. So what truly matters is what all these sitting justices are doing.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 2:23:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 1:28:16 AM, YYW wrote
Oh, your boy Scalia would take VERY SERIOUS issue with that bold proposal. Although personally, I don't disagree, but even still, I don't care. I am more of a textualist than an original intent guy.
Not sure about Justice Scalia, but I am fairly certain that Justice Clarence Thomas would be very very upset. But who knows, the guy hasn't spoken for years, literally.

What would you say if the Court invalidated he Affordable Care? Is the law constitutional or not? If the court said: No, it is not. Then that is the death penalty for the law. Plain and simple.

Why yes. That is exactly what I would say, actually.

Mind sharing your thoughts on the Second Amendment? What does the Second Amendment truly mean?

Precisely what the Supreme Court says it means. lol
It seems that we have more agreements rather than disagreements...
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 2:27:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 1:41:12 AM, FREEDO wrote:
District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008

That was the first time that the Supreme Court actually agreed that the second amendment gave the right for any individual to bear arms.

Before then and, indeed, when it was written, it has had a completely different meaning.

The amendment reads:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The belief most commonly held through history about the meaning of the second amendment until very recently has been that it grants states the right to form their own military. Never was it meant to be used as a right for any individual to own a firearm.
Conservative justices believed otherwise, for better or for worse.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 2:34:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 1:41:12 AM, FREEDO wrote:
District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008

That was the first time that the Supreme Court actually agreed that the second amendment gave the right for any individual to bear arms.

Before then and, indeed, when it was written, it has had a completely different meaning.

The amendment reads:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The belief most commonly held through history about the meaning of the second amendment until very recently has been that it grants states the right to form their own military. Never was it meant to be used as a right for any individual to own a firearm.

That was precisely one of its purposes, if the person owned slaves, especially.

It was a big attraction for the states to ratify, and it was somewhat necessary because most of them had similar provisions in their own documents of formation.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 2:37:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:30:08 PM, TheTraditionalist wrote:
The Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Do I have the constitutional right to own an rpg? I really want one.

And, you can own a tank. You just can't manufacture or purchase munitions for it...depending on the state in which you live.

http://cars.natemichals.com...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
civil_rights_supporter
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 2:14:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:48:39 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:30:08 PM, TheTraditionalist wrote:
The Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

No it does not. It gives states the right to maintain militias to provide for the common defense. C That the interpretation of the second amendment is popularly understood to confer an individual right to bear arms is both amusing and irrelevant anyway. The overwhelming majority of gun control laws designed to curtail individual ownership of firearms have been found to be constitutional by American courts on all levels, and will continue to be because of the government's compelling interest in public safety.

Do I have the constitutional right to own an rpg? I really want one.

No.

It is absolutely false that the 2nd Amendment means "It gives states the right to maintain militias to provide for the common defense. " the reason being that on September 9th, 1789 in the Senate, a proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" (sic) next to the words "bear arms" was defeated.
Also false is the assertion that "Readings of the second amendment that believe it affords an individual right to firearm ownership were invented right wing activists in the 1960s in efforts to politicize the then neutral NRA." As in the Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) Chief Justice Taney ruled that a negro can not be a citizen of the United State of America because " It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 2:49:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 9:01:38 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
The Federalist Papers, historical context under which the 2nd Amendment was written, and definitions of the words used in it from the late 1700s make it obvious that the right to bear arms means the right to bear the armament of the standard infantryman.

When RPGs become standard armament for ground soldiers, then you have a right to own an RPG.

Think of what the standard armaments are for 21st century ground soldiers. At least, the ones the public know about. Plus, American versions of RPGs (read "fires in a straight line") are quite plentiful among platoons.

RPGs are going to be the least of our problems if that's the standard.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 2:52:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 1:28:16 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/28/2013 1:21:07 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:19:40 AM, YYW wrote:
Read the debate I have going on this subject right now. The overwhelming bulk of supreme court jurisprudence on this issue either (1) does not recognize an constitutionally sanctioned individual right to possess arms OR (2) accepts the premise that some firearms may be possessed pursuant to state regulation, as this is an aspect of police power (if you don't know what that is, look it up). No carte blanche right to have guns is conferred by the constitution.

What I will concede is that in one recent decision, Scalia has wrote an opinions on this issue that does suggest the court's leaning in favor of examining gun control regulations with a higher level of scrutiny. That does not, however, mean that the constitution gives people the right to keep whatever munitions they please.

But really, it is of no consequence what you think your rights are, when the courts ALMOST ALWAYS side with the government, when people challenge laws designed to curtail individual gun ownership. That, essentially, is the value of your "right" to bear arms: almost none whatsoever whenever legislatures avail themselves to curtail it. So again I say, read what I wrote and try to understand it.

It doesn't matter what the Supreme Court said in the past.

Two words: stare decisis. Learn them and their relevance to US law.

What truly matters is what all those nine justices are saying right now.

Not even close.

In his option, Justice Scalia reasoned that right indeed recognized certain boundary. Yet, gun rights was conferred upon the citizens by the founding fathers when they began to envision the future of the United States.

To provide for the common defense in state (as opposed to federal) militias.

It may be unreasonable for one to own a RPG in the name of self-defense. Yet is it unreasonable for one to own a shotgun or handgun or high capacity magazine?

That depends on which state you live in. Again, police power. Look it up.

If the Supreme Court said so, then it is unreasonable. If someone in the Supreme Court decided otherwise, then it is not.

Indeed. The point is that they side with the government in almost all cases regarding an individual right to bear arms because of the state's compelling interest in preserving public safety. This is functionally at the expense of the notion of an "individual right" to bear arms, and readings of the second amendment which would misinterpret it to confer such a right.

Given the ambiguity of the U.S. Constitution, it seems that no one is sure what the constitution truly means.

Oh, your boy Scalia would take VERY SERIOUS issue with that bold proposal. Although personally, I don't disagree, but even still, I don't care. I am more of a textualist than an original intent guy.

What would you say if the Court invalidated he Affordable Care? Is the law constitutional or not? If the court said: No, it is not. Then that is the death penalty for the law. Plain and simple.

Why yes. That is exactly what I would say, actually.

Mind sharing your thoughts on the Second Amendment? What does the Second Amendment truly mean?

Precisely what the Supreme Court says it means. lol

While I have big issues with Scalia's Heller rationale, unfortunately you are making a historical error.

The issue you bring up, funding of state militias, was indeed on the founders mind and was argued for by Patrick Henry, Mason, etc.

However, it was separate from the "right to bear arms" proposal.

" George Mason debated this issue at the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 14, 1788 and specifically asked that "in case the general government should neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm and discipline them." Contrary to the arguments of many "collective right" advocates, Mason"s solution for this was not Section 17 of the 1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention proposal [the language used in the 2nd amendment]. Mason"s militia power amendment found voice in Virginia"s proposed Constitutional Amendment 11, that "each state respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same.""

http://www.stanford.edu...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 3:50:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:48:39 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:30:08 PM, TheTraditionalist wrote:
The Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

No it does not. It gives states the right to maintain militias to provide for the common defense.

No you idiot, how the fvck will civilians defend against the military when they march them into camps like Nazi Germany?

The founders were civilians, the militia was the common man, and they fought their own government's military. The founders were very clear that every citizen had the right to bear arms. It would be idiotic to enumerate the right of the military to have firearms. A military by definition has arms.

You don't understand jacksh!t about the 2nd Amendment.

Readings of the second amendment that believe it affords an individual right to firearm ownership were invented right wing activists in the 1960s in efforts to politicize the then neutral NRA. That the interpretation of the second amendment is popularly understood to confer an individual right to bear arms is both amusing and irrelevant anyway. The overwhelming majority of gun control laws designed to curtail individual ownership of firearms have been found to be constitutional by American courts on all levels, and will continue to be because of the government's compelling interest in public safety.

BS. You made that up.

Do I have the constitutional right to own an rpg? I really want one.

No.

Prove why not.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 3:58:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Readings of the second amendment that believe it affords an individual right to ::firearm ownership were invented right wing activists in the 1960s in efforts to ::politicize the then neutral NRA. That the interpretation of the second amendment is ::popularly understood to confer an individual right to bear arms is both amusing and ::irrelevant anyway. The overwhelming majority of gun control laws designed to curtail ::individual ownership of firearms have been found to be constitutional by American ::courts on all levels, and will continue to be because of the government's compelling ::interest in public safety.

BS. You made that up.
Actually, this is true. Also individual gun rights were not a widespread concept until the early 60's.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 4:04:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 3:58:10 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
Readings of the second amendment that believe it affords an individual right to ::firearm ownership were invented right wing activists in the 1960s in efforts to ::politicize the then neutral NRA. That the interpretation of the second amendment is ::popularly understood to confer an individual right to bear arms is both amusing and ::irrelevant anyway. The overwhelming majority of gun control laws designed to curtail ::individual ownership of firearms have been found to be constitutional by American ::courts on all levels, and will continue to be because of the government's compelling ::interest in public safety.

BS. You made that up.
Actually, this is true. Also individual gun rights were not a widespread concept until the early 60's.

False. 1775.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 4:09:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:30:08 PM, TheTraditionalist wrote:
The Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Do I have the constitutional right to own an rpg? I really want one.

You have the constitutional right to own a Howitzer
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 4:12:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
-- 2nd Amendment

You anti-gun people are saying we're not people? According to you idiots, the 2nd Amendment means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except for you, your mom, your dad, your son, your grandpa, your teacher, your sister, your brother, your doctor, and grandson. They don't get arms, just the military." Yeah, ok.

That's an utterly retarded interpretation and simply indefensible.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 4:26:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 2:49:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/27/2013 9:01:38 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
The Federalist Papers, historical context under which the 2nd Amendment was written, and definitions of the words used in it from the late 1700s make it obvious that the right to bear arms means the right to bear the armament of the standard infantryman.

When RPGs become standard armament for ground soldiers, then you have a right to own an RPG.

Think of what the standard armaments are for 21st century ground soldiers. At least, the ones the public know about. Plus, American versions of RPGs (read "fires in a straight line") are quite plentiful among platoons.

RPGs are going to be the least of our problems if that's the standard.

As long as there is sufficient firepower so the peasants can steal a few rpg's from the troops, I don't see the problem.

http://www.youtube.com...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 4:32:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
-- Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 4:51:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:48:39 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:30:08 PM, TheTraditionalist wrote:
The Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

No it does not. It gives states the right to maintain militias to provide for the common defense.
Wrong! It's an individual right to protect your natural rights (life, liberty, as property), along with the rights of your community.

The Battles of Lexington and Concord are a historical president to the 2nd amendment, as they give a historical insight to why the amendment was adopted.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies ordered the military to seize the weapons of the local militia, which was comprised of every able bodied male citizen old enough to serve. As a result the local militia hid weapons so they could not be confiscated. Initially the royal military just confiscated gun powder, but later they began confiscating guns and cannons. The confiscation of arms resulted in the battles of Lexington and Concord, fought between the local militia and the Royal Army.

After declaring independence states adopted their own constitutions; many of which included bills of rights. Nearly every state included the right to bear arms in their new constitution. Here are a few examples;

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." ~ Pennsylvania Constitution 1776

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. " ~ Virginia Constitution 1776

Readings of the second amendment that believe it affords an individual right to firearm ownership were invented right wing activists in the 1960s in efforts to politicize the then neutral NRA.

BS
The Dick Act established the national Guard in 1903, reorganizing state militias into reserve forces for the US military. The intent of National Guard was to seize control of the militias from the states. The Congress felt that Governors used militias as "private armies" during the civil war, and therefore the militia, as it was, could not be trusted.
The National Guard s comprised of 2 types of militia;
Organized militia (A standing army of reservists)
and
Unorganized militia (Anyone willing to fight along side the organize militia)

Prior to 1903 the militia was comprised of every able bodied male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45, organized into local companies. Members of the militia were required to provide their own arms and equipment, and it was the role of the officers to train the militia so they would be well regulated (a military term meaning well drilled or well disciplined).
That the interpretation of the second amendment is popularly understood to confer an individual right to bear arms is both amusing and irrelevant anyway. The overwhelming majority of gun control laws designed to curtail individual ownership of firearms have been found to be constitutional by American courts on all levels, and will continue to be because of the government's compelling interest in public safety.

"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."

Just because a Judge rules that the it is constitutional to not enforce the constitution does not make it constitutional. Case Law cannot contradict statutory law; statutory law always trumps case law, and the constitution is the supreme statutory law of the land.
Do I have the constitutional right to own an rpg? I really want one.

No.

Yes he does.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle