|
Post by jiminix on Oct 10, 2017 14:52:24 GMT -7
There is no constitutional right to keep and bear every kind of weapon, nor is there any constitutional right to accumulate an arsenal. There is no constitutional right to concealed carry. There is no constitutional right to take your gun everywhere. The current 2nd amendment interpretation is crafted by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court to accommodate the current swing of the pendulum. It will eventually swing back toward rationality, and the 2nd amendment will again be understood to be tied to the existence of a public militia, as the amendment clearly states. There is a constitutional right and it's quite clear. "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" The 2nd amendment interpretation is the same rationality as it was crafted over 200 years back. The ant-gun nuts have trouble understanding it. BTW, it is still and has always been tied to the well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. Seems your use of the word "public" is missing. The irony is dripping all over the floor. Those claiming Trump is a tyrant are the same that want to do away with the 2nd Amendment when the 2nd Amendment is their only protection against tyranny. The "...being necessary to the security of a free State..." part has them baffled. Federalism, separation of powers and checks and balances become moot when one party controls all branches of government at federal and state levels. The is the case now with the Republicans in solid control of both levels (well not quite at SCOTUS until one of the liberal justices retires). That control is still increasing. I said "public militia" to clarify its meaning; the word "public" is not used in the Constitution because it would be redundant. A militia, by definition, is public, or drawn from the civilian population. In one post, you mentioned an act of Congress of 1792 - the second amendment predates that act by a few years, so its intended meaning in no way derived from that act. The founding fathers knew that a militia was not essential; no other nation had a militia. Their meaning was that at the time, a militia was necessary to "OUR" free state, because WE did not have a standing army. The reason for protecting the right to bear keep and bear arms was so that civilians could be called upon to constitute an army whenever needed. The constitutional protection is contingent upon the necessity of a militia. Now that we have a standing army, a militia is not necessary, so the former constitutional protection becomes moot. "Gun rights" is a fairly recent political football. When I grew up in Texas, everybody had guns, and nobody questioned the rightful authority of the government to regulate them. Concealed carry was illegal, and there were plenty of laws restricting where they could be carried and laws prohibiting certain kinds of guns. Everybody regarded this as rational and nobody thought their "gun rights" were being violated. Ronald Reagan as president supported gun control, and even later very conservative retired Rpublican Chief Supreme Court Justice Burger wrote that gun regulation was constitutional because public gun ownership was no longer necessary to national survival as it once had been. The NRA and gun ideologues always quote the 2nd amendment as "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", as you did above. I'm glad you later acknowledged the militia clause. But what about the phrase "well-regulated militia"? Gun rights ideologues never address that "well-regulated" part. My own personal opinion is that gun regulation is about as important as speed limit laws. It's not worth expending much effort on it. But as a matter of legality and constitutionality, the gun rights advocates don't have a rational leg to stand on. I have no doubt that the Supreme Court will eventually return to that view.
|
|
|
Post by jiminix on Oct 10, 2017 15:11:43 GMT -7
Federalism, separation of powers and checks and balances become moot when one party controls all branches of government at federal and state levels. The is the case now with the Republicans in solid control of both levels (well not quite at SCOTUS until one of the liberal justices retires). That control is still increasing. The Supreme Court still has a majority of Republican appointees. There has not been a majority of Democratic appointees since 1969. For the 40 years before Obama appointed his first justice, there was an average of 7.1 Republicans and 1.9 Democrats on the Supreme Court. Whatever you think of the judicial landscape of this nation, it is overwhelmingly the doing of Republicans, not Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Oct 10, 2017 15:56:45 GMT -7
In one post, you mentioned an act of Congress of 1792 - the second amendment predates that act by a few years, so its intended meaning in no way derived from that act. The founding fathers knew that a militia was not essential; no other nation had a militia. Their meaning was that at the time, a militia was necessary to "OUR" free state, because WE did not have a standing army. The reason for protecting the right to bear keep and bear arms was so that civilians could be called upon to constitute an army whenever needed. The constitutional protection is contingent upon the necessity of a militia. Now that we have a standing army, a militia is not necessary, so the former constitutional protection becomes moot. "Gun rights" is a fairly recent political football. When I grew up in Texas, everybody had guns, and nobody questioned the rightful authority of the government to regulate them. Concealed carry was illegal, and there were plenty of laws restricting where they could be carried and laws prohibiting certain kinds of guns. Everybody regarded this as rational and nobody thought their "gun rights" were being violated. Ronald Reagan as president supported gun control, and even later very conservative retired Rpublican Chief Supreme Court Justice Burger wrote that gun regulation was constitutional because public gun ownership was no longer necessary to national survival as it once had been. The NRA and gun ideologues always quote the 2nd amendment as "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", as you did above. I'm glad you later acknowledged the militia clause. But what about the phrase "well-regulated militia"? Gun rights ideologues never address that "well-regulated" part. My own personal opinion is that gun regulation is about as important as speed limit laws. It's not worth expending much effort on it. But as a matter of legality and constitutionality, the gun rights advocates don't have a rational leg to stand on. I have no doubt that the Supreme Court will eventually return to that view. Come on now, jiminix. Your ability to read is far better than what you've shown. My mention of the Militia Act of 1792 was in answer to Entimos' statement that membership in the militia was "completely voluntary". I even quoted his statement. How you deduced the 2nd Amendment somehow derived from that act is beyond the pale. Then you somehow claim that that the founding fathers knew that a militia was not essential is bizarre. It's the opening clause of the 2nd Amendment, remember. The militia is essential enough that Congress has the power to "...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions..."(Art I, Sec 8). POTUS "...shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..." (Art 2, Sec 2). The first militia act of 1792 authorized POTUS to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act". Sez who the founding fathers knew that a militia was not essential. Do you remember a Col Washington who commanded the Virginia militia with Gen Braddock in 1758 in that ill fated expedition against Ft Duquesne? Additionally, militias have been known since Roman times. Many countries had militias in the late 18th century. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MilitiaWe also have had a standing army since 14 June, 1775 contrary to your claim. This also predates the 2nd Amendment. The founding fathers distrusted large standing armies. The well regulated militia, not the standing army, is necessary for the security of a free state. Of course the NRA doesn't mention the opening clause. That's not the right, it's what explains the reason for that right. But as a matter of legality and constitutionality, the anti-gun rights advocates don't have a rational leg to stand on. I have no doubt that the Supreme Court will continue in Scalia's (etal) view and the amendment's original intent.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Oct 10, 2017 16:05:16 GMT -7
Federalism, separation of powers and checks and balances become moot when one party controls all branches of government at federal and state levels. The is the case now with the Republicans in solid control of both levels (well not quite at SCOTUS until one of the liberal justices retires). That control is still increasing. The Supreme Court still has a majority of Republican appointees. There has not been a majority of Democratic appointees since 1969. For the 40 years before Obama appointed his first justice, there was an average of 7.1 Republicans and 1.9 Democrats on the Supreme Court. Whatever you think of the judicial landscape of this nation, it is overwhelmingly the doing of Republicans, not Democrats. Who appointed whom is moot, it's how they vote that counts. I hope you've heard of Justice David Souter? How about Justice Anthony Kennedy? Quick, name the Democratic appointees that rejected their liberalism and consistently voted with the conservatives.
|
|
|
Post by jiminix on Oct 10, 2017 20:29:19 GMT -7
Who appointed whom is moot, it's how they vote that counts. I hope you've heard of Justice David Souter? How about Justice Anthony Kennedy? Quick, name the Democratic appointees that rejected their liberalism and consistently voted with the conservatives. Souter became fairly liberal. Kennedy is a conservative, but is sometimes willing to vote his rational view instead of his party's dogma. As far as Democrats who became conservatives, there is Byron White or Hugo Black - I get the names confused. I think it was White. And there was Felix Frankfurter. But these Democrats kind of lost their marbles and got perpetually crotchety. You're right that conservatives become progressives much more often. They are partyliners as long as they are hoping to advance up the ladder. But when they reach the top and don't have to play politics anymore, a lot of them have decided to follow where truth and reason lead. I think George Bush was advised of this, and that's why he settled on Catholic nominees, and probably why Donald Trump did likewise. It appears that when Catholics change their viewpoints, they tend to do it early in life, not after they are established in their careers. Please don't take this as any kind of religious bias. I am equally unhappy with every brand of religion if it imposes itself into politics or into the lives of others, and equally unconcerned if they confine their religious activities to their churches and private lives.
|
|
|
Post by jiminix on Oct 10, 2017 22:10:23 GMT -7
Come on now, jiminix. Your ability to read is far better than what you've shown. My mention of the Militia Act of 1792 was in answer to Entimos' statement that membership in the militia was "completely voluntary". I even quoted his statement. How you deduced the 2nd Amendment somehow derived from that act is beyond the pale. Then you somehow claim that that the founding fathers knew that a militia was not essential is bizarre. It's the opening clause of the 2nd Amendment, remember. ... Sez who the founding fathers knew that a militia was not essential. .... We also have had a standing army since 14 June, 1775 contrary to your claim. This also predates the 2nd Amendment. The founding fathers distrusted large standing armies. The well regulated militia, not the standing army, is necessary for the security of a free state. Sorry, I thought you were using the 1792 act to say something about the general nature of a militia. The founding fathers knew that militias are not necessary because Britain, France, Spain, Netherlands, etc., etc., did not have a militia, and they survived just fine for centuries without one. What they were saying was that FOR US, a militia was necessary at that time because we did not have a standing army that civilians could enlist in and then be given their weapons and equipment. We did not have an army in 1775, much less a standing army. The Continental Congress didn't claim to be a government and it wasn't even clear if we ever would be a nation or not. Everything that happened in Philadelphia in 1776 or before was a dream - none of it actually existed yet. Even the Declaration of Independence did not declare the "United States" to be a nation, but only colonies each declaring themselves to be independent of Britain.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Oct 11, 2017 6:56:18 GMT -7
The founding fathers knew that militias are not necessary because Britain, France, Spain, Netherlands, etc., etc., did not have a militia, and they survived just fine for centuries without one. What they were saying was that FOR US, a militia was necessary at that time because we did not have a standing army that civilians could enlist in and then be given their weapons and equipment. We did not have an army in 1775, much less a standing army. The Continental Congress didn't claim to be a government and it wasn't even clear if we ever would be a nation or not. Everything that happened in Philadelphia in 1776 or before was a dream - none of it actually existed yet. Even the Declaration of Independence did not declare the "United States" to be a nation, but only colonies each declaring themselves to be independent of Britain. Well, which is it? In the same paragraph you state that the militia wasn't necessary yet in the next sentence state the opposite. Very strange. You again claim "(t)he founding fathers knew that militias are not necessary..." yet the opening clause of the second states it's the requirement for the security of a free state, The militia was essential enough that Congress has the power to "...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions..."(Art I, Sec 8). POTUS "...shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..." (Art 2, Sec 2). The first militia act of 1792 authorized POTUS to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">usconstitution.net/const.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792Looks like the founding fathers wisely knew the militia was necessary. Again, very strange that you persist in your belief (t)he founding fathers knew that militias are not necessary because Britain, France, Spain, Netherlands, etc., etc., did not have a militia, and they survived just fine for centuries without one" when proof of European (and others) militias was provided - with reference. I even showed a use of one of the militias of the British empire. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia#16th_and_17th_centuries Also, a simple search for the history of the US Army would reveal that it indeed was founded on 14 June 1775 by act of the Second Continental Congress. We've had a standing army since. "When the American Revolutionary War began in April 1775, the colonial revolutionaries did not have an army. Previously, each colony had relied upon the militia, made up of part-time civilian-soldiers. The initial orders from Congress authorized ten companies of riflemen. The first full regiment of Regular Army infantry, the 3rd Infantry Regiment, was not formed until June 1784.[1] After the war, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded because of the American distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of a regiment to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Army
|
|
|
Post by jiminix on Oct 11, 2017 9:29:05 GMT -7
What I said before seems completely clear, but you respond as if you didn't read it, as least not all of it. I will make one last try to make my meaning unavoidable.
European countries defended themselves with regular armies, not with militias - the founding fathers knew this, so they understood that in general a militia is not necessary to a nation's survival.
They also understood that our fledgling attempt at a nation did not have the type of permanent army that European nations had, so FOR US AT THAT TIME, a militia (an armed citizenry) was necessary.
|
|
|
Post by jiminix on Oct 11, 2017 9:45:27 GMT -7
I didn't dispute that the Continental Congress voted in 1775 to have an army.
But a piece of paper does not make an army. 50 men in Philadelphia deciding to authorize an army to fight in their name does not make that army exist. Especially when a large minority of those 50 had no intention of ever supporting the idea of a permanent standing army.
This was a revolutionary army, created for the purpose of forcing out the British, and as you acknowledged, it was disbanded when that war was over.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Oct 11, 2017 10:57:11 GMT -7
What I said before seems completely clear, but you respond as if you didn't read it, as least not all of it. I will make one last try to make my meaning unavoidable. European countries defended themselves with regular armies, not with militias - the founding fathers knew this, so they understood that in general a militia is not necessary to a nation's survival. They also understood that our fledgling attempt at a nation did not have the type of permanent army that European nations had, so FOR US AT THAT TIME, a militia (an armed citizenry) was necessary. So you once again state the Founding Fathers knew a militia wasn't necessary but claim again that the Founding Fathers knew it was necessary. No wonder you're so confused. Apparently you skipped over the quotes from the Constitution and the Militia Act of 1792. As as already shown and referenced twice, the European powers did rely on militias. History doesn't lie. Then there's this from your next post: "But a piece of paper does not make an army. 50 men in Philadelphia deciding to authorize an army to fight in their name does not make that army exist. Especially when a large minority of those 50 had no intention of ever supporting the idea of a permanent standing army. This was a revolutionary army, created for the purpose of forcing out the British, and as you acknowledged, it was disbanded when that war was over." Of course on 14 June 1775 the completer Continental Army didn't poof into existence. There were enlistments, officer appointments, weapons munitions and a bunch of other stuff to be procured, but the army did exist. "Congress created the Continental Army on June 14, 1775. Washington was nominated by John Adams of Massachusetts, then appointed as a full General and Commander-in-chief of the Continental Army. " and a little later on: "Washington assumed command of the Continental Army in the field at Cambridge, Massachusetts in July 1775 during the ongoing siege of Boston. He recognized his army's desperate shortage of gunpowder and sought new sources. American troops raided British arsenals, including some in the Caribbean, and some manufacturing was attempted. They obtained a barely adequate supply (about 2.5 million pounds) by the end of 1776, mostly from France." The en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_WashingtonWashington's appointment was on 16 June, 1775. worldhistoryproject.org/1775/6/16/george-washington-is-appointed-commander-in-chief-of-the-continental-armyThat "piece of paper" bore fruit rather quickly. I never acknowledged that the army was disbanded when the war was over. That quote is (pay attention to the bold at the end) "After the war, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded because of the American distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of a regiment to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal." That proved my point. Had you checked the reference you would have seen the next statement: "However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington1791! That's the same year the Bill of Rights with that "well regulated militia" clause was ratified. Yes, we had a permanent standing army since 1775. We had the militias too and still do.
|
|