Page 1 of 1 1
Topic Options
#9814 - 06/27/08 12:10 AM Second amendment is clarified...
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

While today’s ruling does little for me it deserves to be announced…

The Supreme Court today for the first time since the second amendment was written and adopted has interpreted the meaning… It is now a persons right to own and possess a gun to protect his home and him/herself… Clearing the confusion that it is only our right to own a gun for use in a well kept militia…

Therefore all states and districts outright banning gun ownership has now been overturned… This is not the end but only the beginning… Remember criminals will always have guns…

~T~

Talk amongst yourselves…
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#9822 - 06/27/08 04:27 AM Re: Second amendment is clarified... [Re: ta2zz]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
True, now we can outright own guns.
Thus they get to make a list of what everyone has, and who has what.
So, when the law is reinterpeted, they can show up at your house and collect them.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#9835 - 06/27/08 07:19 PM Re: Second amendment is clarified... [Re: Morgan]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Actually, this case has more profound ramifications that the media seems to be missing. First of all, the majority opinion makes a point to clearly state that the whole of the Bill of Rights enumerates individual rights. This decision in fact strengthens all of the Bill of Rights. Most notably in this day and age is Heller could be cited to strengthen rights under the 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments that are routinely violated by the State. As a side note, it also opens the door to drug legalization under the 9th and 10th Amendment.

Secondly, the majority decision makes clear that the Bill of Rights actually means what it says in plain language that was in common usage at the time. It was written and is meant to be easily understood by the layman. There are no secret meanings in the language of the Bill of Rights and it does not require special degree in law to be understood.

In the specific case of the 2nd Amendment, this ruling means that the right of the people to "keep and bear" arms will legalize the individual right to own and carry arms with few qualifications. Look for a legal challenge in a state near you. The NRA is already taking Chicago to court. Like a house of cards anti-gun law will collapse in a pile of legal contortions. In the very near future it will be universally legal to own and carry a concealed handgun throughout the US with few restrictions. Oh fraptious day!....
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#9837 - 06/27/08 07:48 PM Re: Second amendment is clarified... [Re: Fist]
Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1735
Loc: New York
 Quote:
In the very near future it will be universally legal to own and carry a concealed handgun throughout the US with few restrictions. Oh fraptious day!....


I just simply can not see this happening in today's world. I certainly hope that I am mistaken on this one though.

I mean, it appears to me, that our personal "privilages" a.k.a civil liberties and rights, have been falling like a tumbling row of dominoes. For such a ruling to be accepted and most of all PUT IN PRACTICE, seems highly unlikely in the New World Order of Bush and his tactics, even though he will soon be just a black mark in the history books.
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#9839 - 06/27/08 07:59 PM Re: Second amendment is clarified... [Re: Asmedious]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Again, I will point to the fact that the NRA is already set to "petition the State for redress of grievance." Some suits have already been filed and more are to come.

And let us not forget that, again, this decision strengthens ALL individual rights found in the Bill of Rights. It is only a matter of time for right law suits to hit courts. I can assure you Heller will be cited! We in America are indeed blessed that our Founders set into place a system in which a revolution can be launched without a shot being fired.

The revolution will not be televised! But, I am still making popcorn...
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#9840 - 06/27/08 09:12 PM Re: Second amendment is clarified... [Re: Morgan]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
True, now we can outright own guns.
Thus they get to make a list of what everyone has, and who has what.
So, when the law is reinterpeted, they can show up at your house and collect them.

Morgan

Well then Like I said this changes little for me... Connecticut is a pro gun state... What it does change is your right in NYC to own and carry a gun... Just in case you did not realize the feds get a copy of every gun purchased (they know what I own), they have my name, address, and picture due to the fact I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun... Heck they even gave me a number to identify me with... ;\)

I worry little about a mass N.W.O. takeover and collection lines for firearms... If and when it happens (not expecting it in my lifetime) I will deal with it...

I worry more about the collapse of the United States as we know it... The dollar is pretty weak right now...

~T~
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#9841 - 06/27/08 09:25 PM Re: Second amendment is clarified... [Re: Fist]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

 Originally Posted By: Fist
Secondly, the majority decision makes clear that the Bill of Rights actually means what it says in plain language that was in common usage at the time. It was written and is meant to be easily understood by the layman. There are no secret meanings in the language of the Bill of Rights and it does not require special degree in law to be understood.

I did not see this but you are correct… I did see big ramifications and understood that this is the beginning not the end of this issue… Very good…

 Originally Posted By: Fist
We in America are indeed blessed that our Founders set into place a system in which a revolution can be launched without a shot being fired.

Over the years people have lost trust in the government what we still have to trust and believe in are the words that bind us together… More so now that this ruling means they should not be continually reinterpreted…

Thank you for your time and thoughts…

~T~
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#9907 - 06/29/08 12:15 PM Re: Second amendment is clarified... [Re: ta2zz]
Sinthesis Offline
stranger


Registered: 06/27/08
Posts: 40
Loc: various places in New Jersey
This comes as a huge surprise to me. As much as I am pro gun rights, at least in our current situation, I always thought that if you interpreted the 2nd Amendment literally, we actually do not have the right to own guns as individuals. It was for strictly militia purposes and the militia has basically been supplanted by the National Guard.

Even if you were to argue that miltias have a different purpose from the Guard, that of a popular check against government power, that seems like a moot point because organizations are not allowed to stockpile weaponry, so it doesn't matter. (I guess you can sort of get around that by having an organization in which everyone owns a gun, even if they are just given out to members as "private gifts" with organization funds.)

But, as contradictory as the ruling is, I'm glad to hear this.
_________________________
accept the darkness in your self
make war against everything else

Top
#9940 - 06/30/08 10:25 AM Re: Second amendment is clarified... [Re: Sinthesis]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Again, the Bill of Rights enumerates specific INDIVIDUAL rights that Founders knew governments typically tried to deign their citizens as they consolidated the collective power of the State.

What's more, in the 9th and 10th Amendment they made it clear that the individual states and people themselves have many more rights than those specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Indeed, Natural Law is invoked early and often in all of this nation's founding documents and the Founders well knew that the people derived their rights from their naturally born free state - not from govt!

In respect to the 2nd Amendment, every living thing has a right to self-defense. Man as a tool building animal has every right to build and wield these tools. The 2nd Amendment was never a collective right in respect to the people themselves having the Natural Right to defend their own lives, families and property. In as much as it might be a collective right, it does give the individual states the right to raise their own militias to act as a check on Federal power.

Let's examine what the 2nd Amendment does in fact say:

"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."

Again, the Bill of Rights needs no special training to be understood. But, for the truly dense allow me to translate a few commonly misunderstood concepts:

"A well regulated Militia,...." There are two key concepts here, 'well regulated' and 'Militia.' In the vernacular of the time, a 'well regulated' military organization was a corps that was well trained and drilled. On the other hand, we have a militia, who is NOT the National Guard (which is federally funded, btw) but a body of armed freemen of military age of that state who report solely to the governor of that state. This is unlike the National Guard who may also be federalized by presidential fiat. Most state constitutions recognize an organized and unorganized militia. In most cases, the National Guard is the organized militia but the unorganized militia still retains the original intent as a corps of ordinary citizens.

"being necessary to the security of a free State,..." This means the INDIVIDUAL states not 'the State' as in the collective federal power. The idea, again, is that each state governor had the power to resist usurpation by the federal army. AND, it also empowered individual revolutionaries to INDVIDUALLY resist tyranny by any central authority. The Founders distrusted all govt as a general rule and ensured their were many checks on govt power.

"the right of the People..." As in We The People. All people. Again and again, the Bill of Rights confers individual rights The People - not the govt.

"...keep and bear Arms..." This one is so easy to understand that you actually have to be trying to be obtuse to not understand it. 'Keep and bear' means OWN and CARRY. Yes, YOU, you the individual citizen has a fundamental Natural Right, as well as a specifically enumerated Constitutional Right to own and carry arms. Where is the confusion on this?! Even if you assume that the 2nd Amendment only confers a collective right of state militias, you must accept the premise that individual members of that militia have a right to own and carry their weapons in the same fashion of contemporary police officers. This is sort of how the Swiss militia system works.

"...shall not be infringed." Does this really require and explanation? At this point you actually have to be playing dumb.


 Quote:
Even if you were to argue that militias have a different purpose from the Guard, that of a popular check against government power, that seems like a moot point because organizations are not allowed to stockpile weaponry,...


Where on Earth do you get your information? The NRA has thousands of guns. Private gun clubs and collectors have large private arsenals. Blackwater is a huge private military contractor that not only owns thousands of military weapons but has it's own private army and air force. It is all perfectly legal. I personally own enough guns to equip an infantry squad.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#9945 - 06/30/08 01:25 PM Re: Second amendment is clarified... [Re: Fist]
Sinthesis Offline
stranger


Registered: 06/27/08
Posts: 40
Loc: various places in New Jersey
I really don't think the "Founders" were so afraid of government tyranny because they are the ones who put it into practice. It wasn't long after the constitution was drafted that mini-prototypes of the Patriot Act came into being. There was a strong anti-Federalist movement before the Constitution came about, and the "Founders" are the one who opposed it.

Your interpretations of the 2nd Amendment are not as universal as you think. The militia does not necessarily need to be defined the way you do, and neither does "State." That could have meant the whole country. But this doesn't matter so much because I'm pro gun rights anyway and I'm even willing to go beyond what's written in the constitution to get them and many other things.

I guess you have a point about stockpiling weaponry. I thought the NRA had no guns of its own but members had plenty. As far as Blackwater, I'm sure the government lets them get away with anything. Anyway, when Waco/David Koresh/the Branch Davidians were raided by the feds, wasn't it because they were stockpiling weapons? Or was some other pretext used? That's where I got that idea.

By the way nice signature.
_________________________
accept the darkness in your self
make war against everything else

Top
#9975 - 06/30/08 11:24 PM Re: Second amendment is clarified... [Re: Sinthesis]
fakepropht Moderator Offline
Big Slick
active member


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 990
Loc: Texas
I'll share my 2 cents with both Fist and Sinthesis. Fist, your interpretation is spot on with mine, and the Supreme Court's. I have no arguement with you.


 Quote:
I really don't think the "Founders" were so afraid of government tyranny because they are the ones who put it into practice.
Please explain this. Leading up to the ratification of the Constitution, we had the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution. To name just a couple. Did the founders really lay their live's on the line hoping to break free from tyranny, just to re-implement it? Hmmm, I think the rights granted in the 1st Amendment alone pretty much tell the average person no, they did not. The 4th amendment furthers that. It is my interpretation, and others more scholary than me in the Constitution, that not only did the founders provide for a militia, the also allowed for an armed populace. The thinking being, that should the rulers get out of hand, the populace had the right to take up arms against them. Remember the French Revolution? The events and state of affairs leading up to that had to weigh heavily on the minds of our leaders at the time. Again, as I interpret it, we the citizens have every right to band together, amass arms, and battle those elected officials above us, with arms, if we see fit. In my State of Virginia, we are allowed to openly carry arms. Including into a bank or restaurant. Guns, swords, and any legally accepted form of a weapon are allowed.
_________________________
Beer, the reason I get up every afternoon.

Top
#9976 - 07/01/08 12:07 AM Re: Second amendment is clarified... [Re: fakepropht]
Sinthesis Offline
stranger


Registered: 06/27/08
Posts: 40
Loc: various places in New Jersey
Hey fakeprophet. I'm not dissing gun rights at all, I'm totally for them. I'm just not sure the constitution guarantees them the way a lot of 2nd-amendment NRA people say it does.

This is fine to me, since I don't consider the constitution a sacred document, I think we can do better. I don't know how we're defining "rights," are they really meaningful beyond what you can effectively do, other than as ideas to strive for? But that's all a philosophical issue, since I agree with gun "rights."

Fakeprophet, when you say you agree with Fist's interpretation of the 2nd amendment, do you mean, that's the interpretation you would prefer, or the one you technically agree with? You can agree with gun liberties while still believing that the constitution technically does not guarantee them.

As far as history, there is a major difference between the poor farmers and small businessmen who fought the American revolution, and the aristocratic/oligarchic/capitalist class who led it. I think the American revolution was worthwhile but there were two classes participating in it for two different reasons. The American ruling class simply wanted to be free of the constraints on their financial expansion that the English Crown and companies represented. The lower classes were more inspired by the idea of personal liberties, as well as getting rid of the British monopolies and extractive trade that was impoverishing them. They were fighting a common enemy, but one to be free, and the other to become the next elite. That's a trend that has been repeated time and time again by national liberation movements. Sure, most of Africa and South America no longer belongs to the French or the Spanish, but I'd hardly call them free societies, neither by their political forms, nor by their economic distributions.

There was an anti-federalist movement before the constitution was written. (If you don't believe me, look up Madison's Federalist Papers...they were written to argue against the anti-federalist movement.) When the constitution was originally introduced, it actually had no bill of rights. The writers of the constitution only begrudgingly allowed a bill of rights as a compromise with the anti-federalist movement. This is not to say that the anti-federalists were all lower class; they had their rich supporters too, often from small states who did not want to be dragged into a more coherent union. The "framers"/"founders" who are so sanctified only wrote the constitution to solidify their business and military interests. There were the Articles of Confederation before the Constitution. The propertied interests of the likes of James Madison, Benjamin Franklin (first media mogul), George Washington (a real estate baron/richest American), a whole host of lawyers, and (my least favorite figure of the american revolution) Alexander Hamilton did not find the Articles sufficient. They did not obligate each state to join in the wars of the other states, did not unify trade terms between states, and did not allow for a national debt or bank (Hamilton's idea) which could loan them public money for business purposes. The bill of rights really only came from proletarian pressures, which were not in unison with but opposed to the intentions of the "founders," who would go on to pass the anti-free speech Sedition Act before even the turn of the century. They would use this act to imprison outspoken members of the emerging Democratic-Republican movement which became the inspiration for the two main parties we have today. The Holy History of America is just one more myth to be taken down.

Imagine the constitution without the first ten amendments. It would basically only be the raw procedural functioning of a democratic republic, without the emphasis on individual rights for which the constitution is so hallowed. Thus I see the American constitution, while being a step over feudalism definitely, was also a step toward the capitalist centralized nation-state, which in my eyes is not preferable at all, but something to be ultimately replaced.
_________________________
accept the darkness in your self
make war against everything else

Top
#9980 - 07/01/08 02:14 AM Re: Second amendment is clarified... [Re: Sinthesis]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
This country constitution has held up for over 200 years, other countries base their new nation rules upon it. AS for it being a philosophy debate, thats why its written down. It can be read by everyone, and thought about, and debated, but not erased. It was written by men looking forward to a future they hoped would be stable and long for this country.

Honestly, you dont like the current system, what would you replace it with that would actually work in practice, not theory.

For the most part, (our country) its not perfect, but its damn better than what a lot of the world has.


Morgan

ps.
Previous/during the War for Independance, Americans had to house and feed the british soldiers. I am sure the soldiers chose the rich peoples houses first for the food. Taxes were bad for everyone, and it wasn't a nice place to live with no choices, no rights, no one to listen or complain to, and a local appointed government that would rather kill you than hear you complain. I think you need to reread up on the beginnings of this country. I am not sure what they are teaching in schools anymore, but it sounds like they left some stuff out.
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
Page 1 of 1 1


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.027 seconds of which 0.001 seconds were spent on 26 queries. Zlib compression disabled.