Save The Second Dot Com & Petition (Saving the Second Amendment)
promoted by John
Rep. Eric Cantor, a frequent poster has a new website and petition called SavetheSecond.com
Don't click away yet as Cantor said: "This is bigger than politics - this is about our fundamental rights as citizens of the United States."
The video which accompanies the petition features a RedState poster who's excellent offering was promoted to the front page this morning entitled Attention: The Administration just blundered in a catastrophic fashion
Please consider signing the petition @ SavetheSecond.com
It was a victory for the American People – the Court of Appeals had overturned the DC handgun ban saying it was a violation of the Second Amendment. Last Friday, the United States Solicitor General sent a message to the Supreme Court asking them to strike down that decision.
Unelected bureaucrats are trying to write away our Second Amendment rights; we must not allow this to happen. This is bigger than politics - this is about our fundamental rights as citizens of the United States.
The Solicitor General is supposed to be your lawyer in the Supreme Court; he represents the government and therefore the people. Last Friday, your lawyer told the Supreme Court that the appeals court was wrong to declare the handgun ban unconstitutional.
Take action today - sign this petition to let the government know that you value your Second Amendment rights. Together, we can ensure that your rights are protected.
It is difficult to exaggerate what is at stake in this case – it is the most important Supreme Court review of the Second Amendment in over seventy years. This case will likely establish an important precedent on the issue of Second Amendment rights – let us make sure that it is one that protects our rights.
Sign the petition today – together we can protect our Second Amendment rights.
- Steven Foley's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Maybe 2nd amendment issues would be a good topic
for our next debate.
Personally I find the 2nd to be as useless and out dated as the 3rd amendment (barring the government from billeting troops in private homes), except that the 2nd is actively harmful whereas the 3rd is merely quaint.
Both are functions of a society that was very different from the current one, neither makes any sense in the modern world.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Maybe...
...but maybe not you in particular as your response here indicates you're ill-prepared to have this debate honestly.
you're either trying to be flippant or to draw attention to yourself as an "out there" chaos theorist or you're just being un-American.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Aww c'mon, maybe he's just wrong
rather than un-American... heck, maybe he's at least partially right!
Best if we all assume good-faith in our political adversaries, don't you think?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
How's he right?
I agree, saying he's un-american is in bad taste and not the way we should approach these matters (Steve!) but on the matter at hand, what's he right about? that some amendments in the Bill of Rights are quaint or out of date? perhaps...but it's essentially an opinion.
If the sentiment is wide-spread enough, we should push for an amendment...otherwise, it's the law.
Well
what do you think of the third amendment?
And frankly, I think we both know that a great many laws should *not* be enforced. I agree that they should be officially repealed, but that does not mean in the meantime they should be used anyway. An example would be the draconian anti-sodomy laws you find in Kansas.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I agree
In my opinion, matters of quartering british soldiers is out-dated.
Now, whether there are laws that *should not* be enforced is a matter opinion. Sure, we have dumb laws...mainly the products of autocratic busy bodies. But here's a big difference. Over turning or changing laws that suck (opinion) but are essentially are not unconstitutional is one thing. Going against the Constitution (The Super-Law) to enact a law is quite another.
Personally, I think anti-sodomy laws are and were unconstitutional. I don't even believe States have the right to make such laws and it saddens me a little that such a law was not struck down when it was made. It should have been. But that was a product of the times and was still wrong.
Yes, we should have constitutional convention and get rid of the 3rd amendment....but maybe it's not worth the trouble.
On an aside, I think the Bill of Rights wasn't long enough. In retrospect, I could think of few more that should have been put in concerning economic freedoms. I would certainly be in favor of a convention to add a few amendments in that respect. ;)
Whereas I think it didn't need to be written
James Madison says it very well:
It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
Conservatives screw this one up royally. They seem to think that the only rights one has are the rights explicitly mentioned. The founders explicitly attempted to guard against this error in interpretation.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I have a hard time imagining
that including the Bill of Rights was a net negative.
I understand the fear that Madison has but seeing how our government, through will of voters, has very often attempted to and actually done a lot of things that are not understood to be constitutional, I think it is safe to say that people do things to be spelled out at times.
Absent a bill of rights, many of those first 10 amendments would be severly compromised right now just like many other rights which are all but dead...if not dead.
**btw, stinermman, conservatives screw this up royally?? EVERYBODY screws this up royally. Everybody.
Nope...
The conservative position is not that we have enumerated rights, but that government has enumerated powers: the ones listed in the Constitution.
For instance, there is no enumerated power for Congress to appropriate money to send humans to Mars. :)
Tell that to Bork
Then Robert Bork must be a liberal, activist judge. No right to privacy you say, Mr. Bork? Now, I'll give him some leeway in that abortion and privacy don't overlap that much, but he's certainly someone conservatives swoon over, but advocates in practice a very powerful state.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Haven't read his book...
...but Bork would not be my model of the ideal conservative judge. There are some areas where I agree with him, and others where I think he's out in la-la land.
Thomas is probably the one of the current nine who comes closest to my own views.
Sorry Brendan...
...but un-American is exactly what it is!
this isn't a political debate the man wants to get rid of two rights that make America and Americans what we are.
and why... because he doesn't think their relevant any more!
Problem is without them he'd be #36285947287463 and unable to worry about such matters!!!
Men like me have fought and died in wars for these documents so kindly excuse me if I don't play nicely with his idiocy on this matter!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
How precisely
do the second and third amendment protect me from being "#36285947287463 and unable to worry about such matters!"
I'm honestly curious what possible connection the third could have to the issue at all. Obviously I suspect you'll argue that the second allows the populous to resist a tyrannical government (as in the original intention). The problem is that idea is ludicrously outdated. No mater how well armed you might be you're a speed bump to the real military because these days it requires professional intelligence, communications, logistics, and planning to field a real military force.
The days of effective citizen militias are gone, probably forever.
I don't see how recognizing that fact makes me un-american, but whatever.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Stop moving the subject to the 3rd
lets table that since this is a thread about the second.
And the fact that you don't know or can't see how the second and amendment protect me from being "#36285947287463 is what I'm talking about being ill-prepared
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Fair enough re: the 3rd
we can leave that aside, I was just surprised by the vehemence of your reaction to saying it is outdated (or is it only un-american to criticize the 2nd?).
I gave you an argument in support of my contention. Want historical evidence?
Consider Ruby Ridge and Waco. Did having an %$#load of guns do anything at all to prevent the government steamrollering them? And they weren't even up against the actual military, merely the FBI and ATF respectively!
More evdence?
Consider Iraq. You;d be hard pressed to find a country more awash in automatic weapons, and yet by far the most efective weapons the insurgents use are IEDs; improvised explosive devices.
There's a lesson there, Steve. If and when we ever have to physically defend ourselves against Washington, it won't be with privately owned rifles.
Now clearly you think I'm wrong, but you'll need to articulate an argument to that effect.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Dude
C'mon - Both Ruby Ridge and Waco where a product of unconstitutional gun laws! My point made succinctly!!!
Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with this argument neither does your analogy. the right to bear arms is not just so citizens can protect their sovereignty from other citizens but a group of politicians. Btw arms doesn't just = guns arms is your personal right to defend your personal sovereignty up to using deadly force!
again I find your myopic understanding of this issue as a whole lacking per my first comment but please see my response to your post below for more
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
No, no.
No that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that the argument that being armed will prevent the government from abusing you is clearly fallacious. Ruby Rudge and Waco are both examples of very well armed populations who were no challenge at all to paramilitary government forces. Against the actual military they would have been an after thought.
If the point of the second is to guard the citizenry against government aggression then it clearly doesn't work.
I'd say that the 2nd, by explicitly talking about militias, is *only* talking about defense against states, ours or others, and not at all talking about protection from criminals. The problem is, as above, and yes my analogy does speak to this matter, that bearing arms no longer works in any way to discourage a military force (ours or others).
Speaking of creative interpretations of the constitution...
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
And let me be perfectly clear on this
I don't think you are un-American -- I think the idea of getting rid of a right that make Americans and America what they are... is un-American.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I realy hope the 2nd is not what makes america
what it is. That would be a very sad thing.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Steve,
you can defend your point (as I have) without calling people un-american or idiots.
People do not hold legal views out of malice (most of the time at least) so taking that route doesn't advance understanding.
Just my advice.
I didn't call anyone an idiot
I called his idea of doing away with the very things that make us Americans -- un-american and it is...Period!
that position is idiocy and should not be included in a serious debate which btw I wasn't engaging in but commenting on. I wasn't debating a point or making a case I was commenting on statements made.
There simply is no point to debating anyone who thinks getting rid of our founding documents and or replacing them with something else.
I'm sorry if I tweaked anyones delicate sensibilities here but on this particular topic I simply will not stand by and let that type of talk go so everyone can feel better or bite my tongue on this matter.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You know
Our founding documents also include a section
about ammendments and repealing them. If you think any talk of repealing an ammendment is unamerican, then you are guilty of ignoring the Constitution itself.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
There was no talk of amendments
And, with the exception of the 3rd Amendment about quartering soldiers, repealing any of the amendments in the Bills of Rights would be a serious affront on individual liberty and the very corner stone of our guarded rights as Americans.
I would not be charitable of either the wisdom or intent of any person or group that would seek to repeal any of them.
I only regret the the Bill of Rights isn't longer. I could think of about 6 or 7 more to add on.
Re: There was no talk of amendments
I don't quite understand your subject title. The entire conversation has been about the 2nd (and occasionally the 3rd) Amendment.
I don't agree either that the 2nd amendment should be repealed (reworded for clarity maybe), but just because you and I think so, does not make the very thought of it un-American.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
sorry:
I meant repealing amendments....
when I used the term, I meant it as a course of action.
OK
I interpreted Tlaloc's initial comment, that started all this, as being about repealing amendments. Which is why I didn't see the problem. I can see that you interpreted it as "we should ignore the 2nd amendment." (And actually later posts in the subthread justify your interpretation.) So I can see your point.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
no prob, SL
I figured it was something like that :)
I do know...
and since I wasn't talking about amendments or repealing them I fail to see where you're going with this?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Confused
Are you and John reading a completely different series of posts than I am? You both are saying that you aren't talking about amendments in a thread that is entirely about amendments. Color me confused.
Regardless, Tlaloc is clearly talking about amendments, and that debating the usefullness of the 2nd might be a worthy topic. I don't see how simply having that point of view is un-American, since there are built in measures in the Constitution for precisely that purpose.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Yes I rushed my reply
I meant repealing amendments.
Just for clarity I don't think debating this issue is un-American. The un-American phrase came into the thread by me proposing Tlaloc was doing so intentionally for affect not as an accusation.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
OK 2
See above.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Hey, I'm cool, Steve
no problems here with me. I'm just trying to keep it constructive.
Reasonable differences between people aside, a lot of things people think truly are "idiocy" by any charitable reading. But those who hold a torch for that idiocy are not going to be persuaded by being called on it...most of the time.
Not much of a debate, Steve,
if you only allow those who agree with you to participate.
Do you regard the third amendment as critical to modern life?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Since this is a 2A thread lets stick to this one.
John Longenecker's views and my own are almost the same so instead of wasting my time typing so I just say there's absolutely no debating the 2nd and this why:
Arguing Gun Laws and Original Intent
There's No Such Thing As Sensible Gun Laws
On concealed carry
or carrying concealed weapon (CCW)
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Alright, let's take a look...
Well right off the bat I have to disagree. The Constitution was not written in anything approaching modern legal terms, it is silly to suggest we read it like a modern EULA. It was written by men who by and large were not lawyers. But beyond that since the constitution is only a compact of agreement (i.e. it is only binding on us because we choose it to be, not because we are obligated to obey it) we have the ultimate right to decide how to read it.
Make no mistake, the constitution is not an agreement between you and Thomas Jefferson, it is an agreement between you and me. Jefferson is dead. His role is a matter of history, it has no modern importance.
Naturally I find this ridiculous. If you want to interpret it by the original meaning then you are entitled to bear muzzle loading black powder muskets, and nothing more modern than that.
Strangely the people who yell the loudest about "original intent" never actually want the original intent.
Which in the age of nuclear weapons is a clear indication that the founder's perspectives are atrociously outmoded and inappropriate to the modern world.
If you honestly believe that your shotgun is "the force which backs [the government's] authority" then you are in for a rude wake up call.
This is what I am talking about- the original intent was based on a world which worked very differently. The world has changed so that it no longer has purpose.
The best analogy is the appendix. It served a purpose for us once, now it serves no purpose. So long as it causes no harm we might leave it alone, but when it becomes inflamed and threatens the host it needs to be cut out. The 2nd amendment has become an inflamed appendix.
I'm sorry Steve but the person you quoted is either intentionally dishonest or really dim. I fully support the idea of self defense. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue. I also support the idea of putting out fires, that doesn't mean I think you should be able to own your own firetruck. If you want to own a tazer for self defense I think that's fine. If you want a minigun I say "no." Why? Because the minigun, unlike the tazer (or baseball bat), can be used to kill a great many people in a very short period of time. That's not worth the risk.
The second amendment isn't about guns, huh?
So we can get rid of the guns and you can have the force of a baseball bat to back it up. Glad that's settled.
Uh, we have that. You can't yell fire in a crowd. You can't slander or defame. Is this guy remotely familiar with the law?
I guess his claim about gun ownership being utterly sacrosanct was all baloney since he's willing to prevent ex-felons and kids from having them. This guy undercuts his own argument an awful lot.
That "force" is no longer a force, hence his argument is so much wasted breath.
I'm sorry, Steve, but this guy is not even remotely convincing.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
This should be a wake-up call to conservatives
Even a Republican administration won't protect your 2nd amendment rights.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Actually
Red State says that the decision should be remanded because the appeals court applied the wrong standard (strict scrutiny v. intermediate scrutiny or rational basis) or something to that effect.
I think it's a strict scrutiny measure myself, but to each his own.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
There's something to be said here about
-the law
-the Constitution...WHICH SUPERSEDES ANY LAW MADE SINCE 9/17/1787! (something some of us seem to forget)
-Procedure...changes to the Constitution must be made by amendments...again WE ALL KNOW THIS.
-Integrity...The Constitution is not a suggestive framework...it's the law.
-Full Democracy and its perils...$HIT! Imagine where we'd be now without a Bill of Rights. Thank YOU, Thomas Jefferson. And Hamilton thought the Bill of Rights was unnecessary and redundant. HA! Good call, Tommy!
-Arrogance...see all of the above
You mean...
We might live in a world where the government could take private property without recompensing the owner, or even a world where a citizen can be scooped up off the street and taken to a secret prison, with no benefit of counsel, and tortured?
Yeah, pretty hard to imagine *that* world. Good thing we have the Bill of Rights...
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Yeah, Tlaloc. Just imagine!
We have road blocks that still get circumvented! No need to tell me. This is allowed to happen because far too many people are far too selective in defending the Constitution and far too permissive to political power and its perils.
Just imagine if we didn't even have iron-clad laws to break!
Hayek wasn't exaggerating or kidding when he wrote The Road to Serfdom. Give free people a chance and they'll eventually vote to enslave themselves.
Thank God the Constitution at least works more than it doesn't. It could be worse.
I agree with Hamilton
See my comment upthread.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
and again
I think you have far too much faith in the discretion and wisdom of democracy, my friend. I agree with Jefferson and think the Bill of Rights should have been longer and more exhaustive.
Meh
As long as it was completely exhaustive, I don't have a problem.
Non-exhaustive lists, as Madison said, have the tendency to disparage others not listed.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Do you really think that
without a Bill of Rights that there would have been some unspoken protective barrier around the rights enumerated therein? I don't.
I think everyone of those of rights would much more curtailed by now as it would have been much harder to prove moves against them unconstitutional. Attempts have been made many times to circumvent those first 10 amendments even though they are state explicitly, never mind rights that weren't.
In a perfect world, people
In a perfect world, people would have looked at Article I, Section 8 and realized no power was granted to congress to restrict speech in any way and left it at that. Similarly, no power was granted to regulate arms, hence the 2nd amendment would not be needed.
I can't really say how jurisprudence would have went absent the Bill of Rights. It could have gone the way I said or how you feel it would have been. Jurists like Robert Bork have explicitly stated that the 9th amendment is useless -- that bodes well for your position.
This is why I'm for a rewrite. If the powers of the government are well-defined and unambiguous, there isn't any need for a bill of rights. As you know, government doesn't grant rights, it recognizes them. We grant government the power to protect those rights. The problem I have with an explicit enumeration, is that it'd be very, very long.
We should always err on the side of more rights rather than less when there is an ambiguity in interpretation. I think you'd agree.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Indeed, but
I feel that federal government powers are pretty well defined....though it hasn't stopped them from going beyond it many times. It's a way of life now. That';s why when someone like Paul harps on the constitution, he sounds "fringe"...we are way beyond constitutionally alloted power.
But on rewriting for clarity:
The nature of government power is self-interest and perpetuation...just like for people. There is no way a rewrite for clarity would ever yield a more restricted and clearly redefined list of powers for the federal government. It justy wouldn't happen. Interested powers would clash to no end about getting their pet clauses and wording stuff in or "clarified" for their own aims.
I gather from previous discussion that plenty of liberals
here favor gun rights and oppose some of the same gun control laws that conservatives find excessive. Cantor might be pleasantly surprised that his cause really is bigger than politics.
Of course, the flip side is that more Republicans support what they consider reasonable restrictions on gun rights.
Moe's comment about turning this to the advantage of GOP candidates was interesting, I thought, if a bit trite.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
the nature of the restriction is key
I think many gun-restricting advocates go through great pains to be vaguely constitutional. This latest attempt is outright un-constitutional.
Also, when it cames matters of constitutionality, I couldn't care less what people think.
I'm sure lots of people would agree on nice sounding law-ideas that are unconstitutional.
My opinion of guns is irrelevant. The law is the law.
Here's my issue John...
...and maybe you can help me here
as listed above -- I beleive there is:
and in so believing isn't this:
True? I beleive it is -- so isn't any regulation or restriction in and of itself unconstitutional?
All gun laws should be immediately lifted and if groups want to lobby Congress to amend the constitution for gun control they're free to do so.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Ha. that's the tricky part
Interpretations can push the envelope without "banning guns".
The way I see (and I'm no Constitutional scholar) is that banning handguns and hunting rifles goes too far and cannot he justified since they go directly at "banning arms" that have always been legal for civilians. I suppose bans on certain classes guns like Uzis and Automatic assault rifles will get some judges to bend the rules since they can be interpreted as being only for military or "institutional" use.
Background checks and all other impediments to buying guns are not "bans" per se and, thus, such laws slip thru without breaking the 2nd Amendment.
It's a hazy area. I dunno.
We need a rewrite
"No law" meant just that in the 18th century. Since states weren't restricted by the amendments, any restrictions of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. were to be left up to them. Regulations of abuse (libel, slander, etc.) were not federal issues.
Similarly, the 2nd amendment is an absolute ban on federal government regulation of firearms. Your state government could regulate them if they felt like it.
With all the good incorporation did via the 14th amendment, it gives that line of jurisprudence much pause. Read strictly, now no regulations may be made on any firearms by any government. Similarly, any abuse of the right is no longer punishable.
A full rewrite of the constitution is direly needed. With respect to rights, I'd envision the following setup:
All "nationally recognized" rights shall be laid out in the federal constitution, along with exhaustive lists of abuses of those rights that can be punished. "Nationally recognized" means rights that at least 66% of the several states recognize. Any state may recognize any other right in its state constitution.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
No way
you give our modern power mongers any room to rewrite that document and god knows what they would do.
Agreed....if you had a re-write
there's a good chance we wouldn't like that re-write considering that we seem to have strayed from the Constitution on matters that would seem to be crystal clear.
I would be up for a clarification of the 2nd though. It's easily the worst written amendment.
It applies to militias
it seems to me. It seems unclear.
I don't see how it is rationall for a citizen to have more firepower than the police.
That's how the gansta's took over during the depression. They overwhelmed the cops with their tommy guns and terrorized the countryside. Of course a lot of that was due to the economics of the depression. Shanty towns, homelessness, joblessness and rootlessness caused many to turn to crimes against the rich as a last resort.
It is the economy, stupid.
Just reject it
Um...then we reject it when we vote on it.
A well-written, minimally ambiguous constitution would be much better than taking our chances that the courts might rule according to our interpretation.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
That'd be unconstitutional
A ban on non-citizens owning guns is clearly unconstitutional because the second amendment refers to "the people", not "the citizens".
The founders made a point of discriminating between the two.
Regarding the "hidden agenda" ... whomever wrote that has a serious persecution complex. There is no hidden agenda to "overthrow us". Reasonable people disagree on the intent of the 2nd amendment.
And if you want to make the case that the 2nd amendment is an unlimited right, then you'd have to concede that the only constitutional restriction on gun ownership is the felon situation. Minors are people, too. Why a ban on minors is acceptable to someone who professes that gun ownership is an unlimited civil right, is beyond my comprehension.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I don't think so
you're viewing the meaning of this in modern terms and not the legal terms of the time. I fully reject this!
Sorry this too is naive the 2A is about the use of force up to deadly force to protect your personal sovereignty. The first thing a hostel government does is to disarm its citizens and eliminate military opposition that doesn't toe the party line.
you're again making the classic mistake that the 2A is talking about guns in particular -- can a minor own a ball peen hammer or a baseball bat? of course they can!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Mostly disagree
1) If "person" means "citizen" then why do the founders use "citizen" some of the time and "person" other times? I'm certainly one for originalism, but I still haven't heard a good argument that the intent was to not protect the rights of non-citizens.
I find that people who wish to make such a distinction simply don't like the idea of "illegals" having weapons. The fear is one based mainly in racism, which i find sad. Do note, I'm not calling you out as a racist or even that you dislike any kind of immigration. I'm just stating an observation. By no means am I trying to paint you as anything.
2) Hostile governments aren't going to obey the constitution anyway. That's what makes them hostile. It's not like some invading army is going to refuse to disarm us because the previous government said we could arm ourselves. You only have the rights you're willing to back up with force. The right to use force can only be backed up by force, so it's already a foregone conclusion.
3) But why not a gun? Minors are people (and even citizens!). Do they somehow have less personal sovereignty than an adult? Why is it that a minor only gets baseball bats to use in self defense?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Missing my points
1) The concept of "illegal" immigration is a modern invention. Note that i in no way said it didn't occur before the modern era but you're failing to see the distinction. This is a moot point anyway non citizens aren't protected by these documents so weather an illegal owns a gun is irrelevant even today because other laws and protections are placed in lieu of 2A
2) you totally missed the point here If you don't take the reference or understand where I'm coming from I can't do anything for you and further explanation is futile.
3) I never said minors should be excluded from the 2nd... this is your invention. I was pointing out that 2A is less about the type of force, method, and type of implementation and more about the right to protect personal sovereignty.
but thanks for playing...
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
One last try
Why is it that people need to be so snippy when replying? This is getting ridiculous. I'm just trying to understand your position, not beat you in some sort of "king of the Internet" debate game. I'm here to understand people, not score imaginary points. Really, if that's the case, I've got better things to do.
1) I still haven't heard why the founders used "citizens" some places and "people" in the others.
3) Actually, it's yours:
The law can only be sensible if it's constitutional. It is obviously unconstitutional for the government to ban the ownership of arms for adults. Why is it constitutional for the government to ban the ownership of arms for minors?
And yes, the 2nd, when read in conjunction with the 9th implies a general right to defend oneself; it has very little to do with actual firearms. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that if you believe the right to bear arms is a right in the same way that freedom of religion is a right, then why is it constitutional to not protect the rights of minors and non-citizens? Minors and non-citizens do have the right to attend church, synagogue, etc., so by the logic that all rights are equally important, minors and non-citizens also have the right to self-defense.
Actually, since you've made it clear that you don't believe any non-citizens are protected by the constitution, I'll just take an answer for why it is permissible for the government to restrict the 2nd/9th amendment rights of citizens under the age of 18.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Depends on background
Gun control isn't as much a liberal-conservative divide as it is a urban-rural divide. This issue is confused because there is a strong correlation between ideology and whether one lives in the country or the city.
My stepfather is rather conservative and I've never found him to be very interested in 2nd amendment rights. He's from a suburb of Akron. I have many friends from high school who are quite liberal and they are just as worried as our friend Mr. Foley about encroachments on their rights. Willard (my hometown) is very rural. I mean we're talking about people who voted for Nader and are also NRA members.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...