NRA to America - 'Fuck you! This shooting is your fault!'

[Patooka]

Let's try this from a different angle:

There is a growing sentiment that mass shootings in schools are becoming a pandemic problem. Metal detectors have been installed, more law enforcement officers have been recruited and nothing has made a significant impact in reducing shootings over the last two decades. A portion of the population believe that removing the weapons used in these acts away from the civilian population might be a legitimate tactic to employ.

Why is this a bad idea? It must be a cultural thing, because I don't see an issue. I freely admit most of the people who are vehemently against gun control just remind me of this guy:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-eRxch5Ojg[/youtube]

Not much of an argument.

 

[ZiprHead]

In the first place, we are a body of citizens enrolled for military discipline. Like nearly everyone else who's male and over 18, I'm registered for the draft. To take out citizenship you say "I hereby declare, on oath, that <blah blah blah>; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that <blah blah blah>". And in the second place, even during the times when the government wasn't enrolling us, and even if you choose to define draft registration as empty symbolism on the grounds that there's no draft at the moment, since when do people's rights go away just because a legislature changes a policy they can change back with the flick of a bic? It takes a constitutional amendment to make a right go away; or at least it's supposed to.

I would say that makes you a potential member. Draft eligibility is confined to 18 to 26 year olds so your definition of everyone being a member of the militia fails. You are also disregarding the training and muster requirements of militia membership. Just because you sign up doesn't make you a member of the militia. If you cannot pass the training level or fail to muster when called, you get tossed out. You again do not become a member of the militia.

In any event, even if you continue to believe "the militia" refers to far fewer people than I think it refers to, how does that support your contentions about Scalia and Heller? The fact remains that the Miller decision is discussing what a militia is for a reason, and that reason is for the purpose of determining what kind of arms we have a right to bear, not for the purpose of determining who among us has the right to bear them. You wrote "It held that the 2nd only applied to members of the state militia and it stayed that way until Heller." No, Miller didn't hold that.

We can tell, because (a) you can't quote it saying anything to that effect; and (b) the notion that it was somehow implied makes no sense in context. If the SCOTUS had intended their ruling to be understood to mean that the right to bear arms applied not to the general public but only to some small militia the government selects the members of, then why the devil would they have gone on and on about pikes, pounds of powder and lead, musket bore, and the number of inches in a shotgun barrel? They would instead have simply noted that Jack Miller and Frank Layton were bank robbers, not men the government had selected and called for service expecting them to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves, and ruled them rather than their guns ineligible for 2nd amendment protections.

The Miller decision cited both as reasons for their decision because both reasons applied.

From Heller: " a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology. All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right....

So which part of that seems unreasonable to you? Do you think if the government banned the public from assembling to protest, but it held a stage-managed peaceful public assembly run by the government and to be attended by those the government called up for it, that their pro-government rally would satisfy "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"? Surely you don't. Surely you know that's an individual right.

So if you're convinced the 2nd amendment is some sort of collective right that a state can satisfy by voting to have a standing professional security force instead of citizen soldiers, then please explain why on earth the authors use the phrase "the right of the people" to refer to a right of every individual in one sentence, and then turn around and use the exact same phrase to refer to a right of a legislature in their next sentence.

Because the 2nd amendment has two parts. Scalia chose to ignore the first part. Those other amendments cited do not have those limiting factors as the second does. It's really that simple.

 

[Vork]

One case of an armed deputy "hiding outside" isn't real evidence at all. I assume you do realize this.

It has been far more than 1 deputy

So how many attacks have there been in schools with armed security? And in comparison to schools without armed security? Taking account of other relevant factors that will increase/decrease the risks?

The ideal situation would be that armed security would be a deterrence for an attack taking place. (We don't know if deterrence works just by looking at one or two cases.)

For people "hiding outside", you need to know how many attacks have actually taken place when armed security was around, and how they behaved. Not everyone is going to run away right?

"Football coach Aaron Feis died shielding students"

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...tball-coach-aaron-feis-died-shielding-n848311

So if some people are armed, presumably at least some of them will try to take on an attacker.


Also, how many schools have these school police officers? Are they there every day all the time? Are they always armed?

Here is a case mentioned in the Twitter thread:

"An alert security officer at a Southern California high school helped thwart a potential attack Friday, two days after the deadly Valentine’s Day shooting in Florida that left 17 people dead, authorities said.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said they raced to prevent a copycat attack last Friday, acting on a tip from a security officer at El Camino High School in Whittier, southeast of Los Angeles."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...guards-tip-police-say/?utm_term=.bf10cba75efa

It's not the same as shooting an attacker obviously. You don't need to be armed to pass on a tip. But it may still be a case of school security stopping a shooting whether or not they were exactly the same as a "school police officer" I don't know.

And:

A school resource officer at Coral Springs High School tracked down a former student who entered the building armed and handcuffed him

https://www.policeone.com/juvenile-...officer-stops-potential-mass-school-shooting/


And:

The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school, Robinson said.

Once he learned of the threat, he ran -- accompanied by an unarmed school security officer and two administrators -- from the cafeteria to the library, Robinson said. "It's a fairly long hallway, but the deputy sheriff got there very quickly."

The deputy was yelling for people to get down and identified himself as a county deputy sheriff, Robinson said. "We know for a fact that the shooter knew that the deputy was in the immediate area and, while the deputy was containing the shooter, the shooter took his own life."

He praised the deputy's response as "a critical element to the shooter's decision" to kill himself, and lauded his response to hearing gunshots. "He went to the thunder," he said. "He heard the noise of gunshot and, when many would run away from it, he ran toward it to make other people safe."

https://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/14/us/colorado-school-shooting/index.html

 

[Vork]

Because the 2nd amendment has two parts. Scalia chose to ignore the first part. Those other amendments cited do not have those limiting factors as the second does. It's really that simple.

That will depend on whether you see the following as a reasonable line of argument, or just a blatantly false excuse to ignore it (as you seem to think)--

"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.... But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. “It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.” Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose."

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/dcvheller.html


For me, that's a reasonable line of argument. From a surface reading (i.e. without a load of historical research), it's not clear that the first part was intended to limit the second part. That's not required by the structure of the statement. It's maybe a little ambiguous. But it could easily be protecting an individual right written that way.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because the 2nd amendment has two parts. Scalia chose to ignore the first part. Those other amendments cited do not have those limiting factors as the second does. It's really that simple.

That will depend on whether you see the following as a reasonable line of argument, or just a blatantly false excuse to ignore it (as you seem to think)--

"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.... But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. “It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.” Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose."

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/dcvheller.html


For me, that's a reasonable line of argument. From a surface reading (i.e. without a load of historical research), it's not clear that the first part was intended to limit the second part. That's not required by the structure of the statement. It's maybe a little ambiguous. But it could easily be protecting an individual right written that way.

Being an originalist with interpreting the 2nd amendment is the dumbest and most willfully ignorant manner of interpretation. The weapons available in 1787 are not remotely equivalent to what is available today.

Might as well regulate the automobile today with early 20th century insight on the horseless carriage.

 

[Vork]

Being an originalist with interpreting the 2nd amendment is the dumbest and most willfully ignorant manner of interpretation. The weapons available in 1787 are not remotely equivalent to what is available today.

Might as well regulate the automobile today with early 20th century insight on the horseless carriage.

I disagree. Looking for the original meaning is the SMART kind of interpretation. Ignoring the original meaning would be the "willfully ignorant" thing to do. It's also very dangerous, as if generally applied would give massive power to judges to rule society who then probably can't in practice be corrected because it needs a super-majority.

As for your point about the difference in modern weapons, the answer to that if it's really a problem is to change the Constitution. Yes that's difficult because you need a super-majority, but what you are suggesting isn't just stupid on the level of interpretation (you can't pick special methods of interpretation for a particular amendment just because you don't like what it says!), but it's actually corrupt also, as you are seeking to violate the law.

 

[bilby]

The USA now has a standing army. IF we accept that the Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed", then we can conclude that as a well regulated militia is no longer either necessary to ensure, nor capable of ensuring, the security of a free state, the entire Amendment is no longer fit for its intended purpose and should be repealed.

There is no reasonable scenario in which the private ownership of firearms, nor membership of ordinary Americans in a Militia would be necessary, nor even particularly helpful, in maintaining the freedom of the state - If the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coastguard are all actively defending the freedom of all or part of US, then she has no need of these rag-tag citizen militias. If, on the other hand, those forces are engaged in suppressing that freedom (under the command of some tyrant), these militias have zero practical hope of preventing them from so doing.

Perhaps the Second Amendment should include a clause that disbands the standing military forces - because absent such a clause, it is demonstrably unfit for purpose.

There's really no reason not to repeal amendments that lead to undesirable consequences, such as an increase in violent crime. The 18th was repealed, and so could the 2nd be.

 

[ZiprHead]

The USA now has a standing army. IF we accept that the Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed", then we can conclude that as a well regulated militia is no longer either necessary to ensure, nor capable of ensuring, the security of a free state, the entire Amendment is no longer fit for its intended purpose and should be repealed.

There is no reasonable scenario in which the private ownership of firearms, nor membership of ordinary Americans in a Militia would be necessary, nor even particularly helpful, in maintaining the freedom of the state - If the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coastguard are all actively defending the freedom of all or part of US, then she has no need of these rag-tag citizen militias. If, on the other hand, those forces are engaged in suppressing that freedom (under the command of some tyrant), these militias have zero practical hope of preventing them from so doing.

Perhaps the Second Amendment should include a clause that disbands the standing military forces - because absent such a clause, it is demonstrably unfit for purpose.

There's really no reason not to repeal amendments that lead to undesirable consequences, such as an increase in violent crime. The 18th was repealed, and so could the 2nd be.

When the 2nd was enacted, a standing army was not wanted. Then we got beat up pretty good in the war of 1812 by Brits and Canadians. That was the impetus for changing minds on that issue.

 

[bilby]

The USA now has a standing army. IF we accept that the Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed", then we can conclude that as a well regulated militia is no longer either necessary to ensure, nor capable of ensuring, the security of a free state, the entire Amendment is no longer fit for its intended purpose and should be repealed.

There is no reasonable scenario in which the private ownership of firearms, nor membership of ordinary Americans in a Militia would be necessary, nor even particularly helpful, in maintaining the freedom of the state - If the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coastguard are all actively defending the freedom of all or part of US, then she has no need of these rag-tag citizen militias. If, on the other hand, those forces are engaged in suppressing that freedom (under the command of some tyrant), these militias have zero practical hope of preventing them from so doing.

Perhaps the Second Amendment should include a clause that disbands the standing military forces - because absent such a clause, it is demonstrably unfit for purpose.

There's really no reason not to repeal amendments that lead to undesirable consequences, such as an increase in violent crime. The 18th was repealed, and so could the 2nd be.

When the 2nd was enacted, a standing army was not wanted. Then we got beat up pretty good in the war of 1812 by Brits and Canadians. That was the impetus for changing minds on that issue.

And in 106 years, you lazy bastards STILL haven't gotten around to amending your constitution to reflect the new reality. It's time you did.

 

[Angry Floof]

The USA now has a standing army. IF we accept that the Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed", then we can conclude that as a well regulated militia is no longer either necessary to ensure, nor capable of ensuring, the security of a free state, the entire Amendment is no longer fit for its intended purpose and should be repealed.

There is no reasonable scenario in which the private ownership of firearms, nor membership of ordinary Americans in a Militia would be necessary, nor even particularly helpful, in maintaining the freedom of the state - If the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coastguard are all actively defending the freedom of all or part of US, then she has no need of these rag-tag citizen militias. If, on the other hand, those forces are engaged in suppressing that freedom (under the command of some tyrant), these militias have zero practical hope of preventing them from so doing.

Perhaps the Second Amendment should include a clause that disbands the standing military forces - because absent such a clause, it is demonstrably unfit for purpose.

There's really no reason not to repeal amendments that lead to undesirable consequences, such as an increase in violent crime. The 18th was repealed, and so could the 2nd be.

When the 2nd was enacted, a standing army was not wanted. Then we got beat up pretty good in the war of 1812 by Brits and Canadians. That was the impetus for changing minds on that issue.

And in 106 years, you lazy bastards STILL haven't gotten around to amending your constitution to reflect the new reality. It's time you did.

You mean 206 years?

 

[bilby]

And in 106 years, you lazy bastards STILL haven't gotten around to amending your constitution to reflect the new reality. It's time you did.

You mean 206 years?

My bad. I am still in the habit of assuming we are in the 20th Century.

Those bastards are even lazier than I thought!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The USA now has a standing army. IF we accept that the Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed", then we can conclude that as a well regulated militia is no longer either necessary to ensure, nor capable of ensuring, the security of a free state, the entire Amendment is no longer fit for its intended purpose and should be repealed.

There is no reasonable scenario in which the private ownership of firearms, nor membership of ordinary Americans in a Militia would be necessary, nor even particularly helpful, in maintaining the freedom of the state - If the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coastguard are all actively defending the freedom of all or part of US, then she has no need of these rag-tag citizen militias. If, on the other hand, those forces are engaged in suppressing that freedom (under the command of some tyrant), these militias have zero practical hope of preventing them from so doing.

Perhaps the Second Amendment should include a clause that disbands the standing military forces - because absent such a clause, it is demonstrably unfit for purpose.

There's really no reason not to repeal amendments that lead to undesirable consequences, such as an increase in violent crime. The 18th was repealed, and so could the 2nd be.

When the 2nd was enacted, a standing army was not wanted. Then we got beat up pretty good in the war of 1812 by Brits and Canadians. That was the impetus for changing minds on that issue.

And in 106 years, you lazy bastards STILL haven't gotten around to amending your constitution to reflect the new reality. It's time you did.

Well, we are supposed to have judges that aren’t partisan fuck nuts that are capable of adapting laws and understandings without needing to amend the constitution.

Sadly they are too busy wondering if decorating a cake for sale is expression worthy of protecting the right to discriminate.

 

[Bomb#20]

I would say that makes you a potential member. Draft eligibility is confined to 18 to 26 year olds so your definition of everyone being a member of the militia fails.

It's Miller's definition, not mine; and I'm not seeing where Miller says you get disenrolled when a government decides not to draft you.

You are also disregarding the training and muster requirements of militia membership. Just because you sign up doesn't make you a member of the militia. If you cannot pass the training level or fail to muster when called, you get tossed out. You again do not become a member of the militia.

Not seeing where Miller says that either.

The fact remains that the Miller decision is discussing what a militia is for a reason, and that reason is for the purpose of determining what kind of arms we have a right to bear, not for the purpose of determining who among us has the right to bear them. You wrote "It held that the 2nd only applied to members of the state militia and it stayed that way until Heller." No, Miller didn't hold that.

We can tell, because (a) you can't quote it saying anything to that effect; and (b) the notion that it was somehow implied makes no sense in context. If the SCOTUS had intended their ruling to be understood to mean that the right to bear arms applied not to the general public but only to some small militia the government selects the members of, then why the devil would they have gone on and on about pikes, pounds of powder and lead, musket bore, and the number of inches in a shotgun barrel? They would instead have simply noted that Jack Miller and Frank Layton were bank robbers, not men the government had selected and called for service expecting them to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves, and ruled them rather than their guns ineligible for 2nd amendment protections.

The Miller decision cited both as reasons for their decision because both reasons applied.

I'm not seeing where the decision says that. If it cited both as you say, then you will be able to point out where it cites their nonmembership in the militia as a reason for their decision.

So which part of that seems unreasonable to you? Do you think if the government banned the public from assembling to protest, but it held a stage-managed peaceful public assembly run by the government and to be attended by those the government called up for it, that their pro-government rally would satisfy "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"? Surely you don't. Surely you know that's an individual right.

So if you're convinced the 2nd amendment is some sort of collective right that a state can satisfy by voting to have a standing professional security force instead of citizen soldiers, then please explain why on earth the authors use the phrase "the right of the people" to refer to a right of every individual in one sentence, and then turn around and use the exact same phrase to refer to a right of a legislature in their next sentence.

Because the 2nd amendment has two parts. Scalia chose to ignore the first part. Those other amendments cited do not have those limiting factors as the second does. It's really that simple.

You're not addressing what I asked you to explain. I'm not asking why you interpret it as a right of legislatures rather than of individuals, and I'm not asking where you think Scalia went wrong. I'm asking you to explain the authors' thinking. I'm asking what considerations would lead any reasonably intelligent author to word his desired amendment the way we find it actually worded, if he intended his words to be understood by others as formalizing the right of a state to form a militia. The authors of our constitution were not shy about saying "State" when they meant "State". In the 10th amendment, the same authors wrote "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.", which shows that "the States" and "the people" were two different concepts in the authors' minds.

So if the 2nd amendment was really meant to be a collective right excercisable only by vote of a state legislature -- a right to make and carry out laws like "The following people shall equip themselves with fire arms and muster once in two months..." -- then please explain why the authors didn't write "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to have their citizens keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". What consideration could have made them think "the right of the people" was a better way to communicate their meaning then "the right of the States"? Help me out here.

 

[Bomb#20]

And in 106 years, you lazy bastards STILL haven't gotten around to amending your constitution to reflect the new reality. It's time you did.

Well, we are supposed to have judges that aren’t partisan ... nuts that are capable of adapting laws and understandings without needing to amend the constitution.

So you figure US v Eichman was wrongly decided? It shouldn't take a constitutional amendment for the government to outlaw flag desecration? If only the justices weren't partisan nuts, they'd have simply "adapted" the First Amendment to say being disrespectful to the American flag doesn't count as free speech? The Bill of Rights is "supposed to" mean whatever the Supreme Wisher* wants it to mean?

(* Who the Supreme Wisher is, you have not yet clarified. Are SCOTUS justices "supposed to" obey the adaptational urges of Congress? The majority? Themselves? Their dogs?)

 

[Vork]

Couple of points--

Although armed citizens couldn't stand up to the full force of the American military, that doesn't necessarily mean that armed citizens couldn't change the regime. Would anyone ever order airstrikes on the American people? Would pilots follow such orders? If things really got that bad, it's quite possible that much of the military would refuse orders or switch sides.

But even if I'm mistaken about that, it's possible to value the principle for more than one reason, (so also for self defence), and that this principle was valued both in the past and today. That it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the law doesn't mean they didn't highly value rights of self defence, or it shouldn't be valued today.

Also, even if guns make a country more dangerous, it's not clear to me that you shouldn't then value gun ownership for self defence. Yes you could give weight to the increased problem of gun violence, and say it's better therefore to ban private ownership. But that doesn't mean it's clearly wrong to go the other way-- to value self defence rights and accept that there are risks to society in this.

If having strict censorship of entertainment made a cultural difference that lowered violent crime, would we do it? Or would we say that we will take free speech and pay the cost in lives and other violent crime?

Because if we wouldn't generally give up free speech in entertainment, then why is entertainment more important than self-defence?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And in 106 years, you lazy bastards STILL haven't gotten around to amending your constitution to reflect the new reality. It's time you did.

Well, we are supposed to have judges that aren’t partisan ... nuts that are capable of adapting laws and understandings without needing to amend the constitution.

So you figure US v Eichman was wrongly decided? It shouldn't take a constitutional amendment for the government to outlaw flag desecration? If only the justices weren't partisan nuts, they'd have simply "adapted" the First Amendment to say being disrespectful to the American flag doesn't count as free speech? The Bill of Rights is "supposed to" mean whatever the Supreme Wisher* wants it to mean?

Not quite certain what your point is there. Are you suggesting fire is a recent invention of man?

(* Who the Supreme Wisher is, you have not yet clarified. Are SCOTUS justices "supposed to" obey the adaptational urges of Congress? The majority? Themselves? Their dogs?)

There is an 18th Century document referring to 18th century weapons. The question is, what would the Founders have intended for 21st century weapons. Someone has to answer the question and SCOTUS is the part of Government that handles that task.

 

[humbleman]

So you figure US v Eichman was wrongly decided? It shouldn't take a constitutional amendment for the government to outlaw flag desecration? If only the justices weren't partisan nuts, they'd have simply "adapted" the First Amendment to say being disrespectful to the American flag doesn't count as free speech? The Bill of Rights is "supposed to" mean whatever the Supreme Wisher* wants it to mean?

Not quite certain what your point is there. Are you suggesting fire is a recent invention of man?

(* Who the Supreme Wisher is, you have not yet clarified. Are SCOTUS justices "supposed to" obey the adaptational urges of Congress? The majority? Themselves? Their dogs?)

There is an 18th Century document referring to 18th century weapons. The question is, what would the Founders have intended for 21st century weapons. Someone has to answer the question and SCOTUS is the part of Government that handles that task.

You are talking of "updating" the whole Constitution.

Such is peanuts.

If the revolution for independence was to happen in year 2000, then the only thing prohibited should be the use of nukes inside the cities. About arms, it will be the same rule than 18th century model.

What is going on is that today "The People" is not used to see dudes with guns walking freely on streets, that's all.

But, if teachers are armed in schools, showing that Beretta 9mm hanging on the waist belt to everybody, after a week or two and several marches complaining of "traumatic students afraid of going to class", and similar crap, the whole city will be used to... it will be the daily routine....

In this case, it is clear, very clear that the agency in charge failed to prevent this kind of attack.

And I can tell that even parents of deaths and survivors are also guilty.

A gun alone can't kill anyone, it requires of a shooter. The target to be blamed always must be the shooter. Period.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not quite certain what your point is there. Are you suggesting fire is a recent invention of man?

There is an 18th Century document referring to 18th century weapons. The question is, what would the Founders have intended for 21st century weapons. Someone has to answer the question and SCOTUS is the part of Government that handles that task.

You are talking of "updating" the whole Constitution.

No, I'm talking about understanding the Founders and applying such understanding with current things, like the Internet, campaign finance, and semi-automatic weapons.

A gun alone can't kill anyone, it requires of a shooter. The target to be blamed always must be the shooter. Period.

Well, no one is blaming the gun. The gun isn't going on trial.

What is the concern is a semi-automatic has very little purpose in the civilian world. Why is its presence being tolerated?

 

[ZiprHead]

It's Miller's definition, not mine; and I'm not seeing where Miller says you get disenrolled when a government decides not to draft you.

Not seeing where Miller says that either.

Damn nested quotes stripped out my part of the conversation and turned it into a mess of trying to respond.

Miller directly quoted the constitution. "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." Tell me, when were you organized, armed and disciplined?

The fact remains that the Miller decision is discussing what a militia is for a reason, and that reason is for the purpose of determining what kind of arms we have a right to bear, not for the purpose of determining who among us has the right to bear them. You wrote "It held that the 2nd only applied to members of the state militia and it stayed that way until Heller." No, Miller didn't hold that.

We can tell, because (a) you can't quote it saying anything to that effect; and (b) the notion that it was somehow implied makes no sense in context. If the SCOTUS had intended their ruling to be understood to mean that the right to bear arms applied not to the general public but only to some small militia the government selects the members of, then why the devil would they have gone on and on about pikes, pounds of powder and lead, musket bore, and the number of inches in a shotgun barrel? They would instead have simply noted that Jack Miller and Frank Layton were bank robbers, not men the government had selected and called for service expecting them to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves, and ruled them rather than their guns ineligible for 2nd amendment protections.

Miller cited numerous state descriptions of who would be in the militia. One, for example: "That every able-bodied Male Person, being a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are hereinafter excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat." There were several others cited so where you get this from, "not for the purpose of determining who among us has the right to bear them."

The Miller decision cited both as reasons for their decision because both reasons applied.

I'm not seeing where the decision says that. If it cited both as you say, then you will be able to point out where it cites their nonmembership in the militia as a reason for their decision.

Then why cite it at all?

So which part of that seems unreasonable to you? Do you think if the government banned the public from assembling to protest, but it held a stage-managed peaceful public assembly run by the government and to be attended by those the government called up for it, that their pro-government rally would satisfy "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"? Surely you don't. Surely you know that's an individual right.

The 1st amendment doesn't have a qualifier like the 2nd does. I've already addressed this.

So if you're convinced the 2nd amendment is some sort of collective right that a state can satisfy by voting to have a standing professional security force instead of citizen soldiers, then please explain why on earth the authors use the phrase "the right of the people" to refer to a right of every individual in one sentence, and then turn around and use the exact same phrase to refer to a right of a legislature in their next sentence.

The Miller decision has always been problematic. Both sides choose to use it for their own purposes. I think the best way to assess efficacy would be to cite any gun control measure found unconstitutional prior to Heller.

Because the 2nd amendment has two parts. Scalia chose to ignore the first part. Those other amendments cited do not have those limiting factors as the second does. It's really that simple.

You're not addressing what I asked you to explain. I'm not asking why you interpret it as a right of legislatures rather than of individuals, and I'm not asking where you think Scalia went wrong. I'm asking you to explain the authors' thinking. I'm asking what considerations would lead any reasonably intelligent author to word his desired amendment the way we find it actually worded, if he intended his words to be understood by others as formalizing the right of a state to form a militia. The authors of our constitution were not shy about saying "State" when they meant "State". In the 10th amendment, the same authors wrote "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.", which shows that "the States" and "the people" were two different concepts in the authors' minds.

So if the 2nd amendment was really meant to be a collective right excercisable only by vote of a state legislature -- a right to make and carry out laws like "The following people shall equip themselves with fire arms and muster once in two months..." -- then please explain why the authors didn't write "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to have their citizens keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". What consideration could have made them think "the right of the people" was a better way to communicate their meaning then "the right of the States"? Help me out here.

Standing armies were not wanted in those times yet the government recognized the need for a common defense. That' why they left it up to state legislators to create militias and that those layman citizen members of the militia could not have their arms removed.

As far as Scalia, he pretty much hand-waved away the militia clause without citing much in the way of reasoning why he did that. As he stated: "(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms." He does not refer to those that disagreed, hand-waving those away without even a mention.

I'm going to have to cut this short. Wife got some bad scallops and is puking up out her eyeballs.

 

[Vork]

No, I'm talking about understanding the Founders and applying such understanding with current things, like the Internet, campaign finance, and semi-automatic weapons.

A gun alone can't kill anyone, it requires of a shooter. The target to be blamed always must be the shooter. Period.

Well, no one is blaming the gun. The gun isn't going on trial.

What is the concern is a semi-automatic has very little purpose in the civilian world. Why is its presence being tolerated?

With regard to the technology development of modern weapons, you really think it's better to have judges just effectively cancel the right, rather than send it back for democratic assessment and a possible constitutional change?

Could we also do this with the right to free speech? Maybe they didn't realize in the 18th century just how problematic it would become for a modern society. There have been massive tech changes to the media of course, and perhaps we are just living in different times where the people can no longer be trusted with free speech.

So we need judges to "adapt" "interpret" the constitution in light of the changing times and basically remove the right to free speech? That's the job of judges, rather than issues like that being decided by democratically elected representatives?