DC gun ban struck downFollow

$20 sounds like a lot of money to a three year.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

That's not clear? What's not clear about that?

The problem is that some people choose to use the preceeding clause as a limitation of the right itself. The actual definition of the right and the restriction on the government with regard to infringment of that right is absolutely crystal clear...

Good point. No wonder there's never been any debate!

*Shrug*

It's great that you're entrenched and confident enough in your convictions that you're right that you can deny that any debate exists. You're wrong, but it's good that you have a healthy sense of self-confidence.

I disagree. I'd say the fact that you have to cherry-pick the second half of the Amendment and disregard the first half proves that there's confusion. So call me confused. As I said, I'll still think you're wrong to deny it but it's no biggie.

And yet the Framers saw it fit to put a line in that, according to you, is completely meaningless. And only for this one Amendment in the Bill of Rights and never to explain why we needed freedom of speech or the right to a jury trial or why the government can't quarter troops in my home. Funny how only the Second Amendment warranted a superfluous history lesson that has no bearing on its meaning or intent.

*Shrug* I doubt it's intended to be meaningless but you think otherwise.

Says you. Plenty of others say differently.

Which only goes back to my original point about it being poorly written and thusly open to interpretation. Hooray!You've failed to make much of an argument otherwise.No, I don't think it was the intent to eliminate all weapons except for solely those in militias. On the other hand, I also don't think that the intent was to give carte blanche for any single class of firearm based on a provision intended to allow for armed state militias. I think a blanket prohibition against handguns would be excessive not because I think the Constitution explicitly provides for us to all have pistols but because I recognize that handguns today are the most common style of privately owned firearm and so a federal ban on them would be a paradigm shift almost on par with banning longarms back in the 18th century.

Edited, Jul 1st 2008 12:06am by Jophiel

Then why do you disagree with me when I say that the first clause shouldn't be interpreted as a limit to the right defined in the second?




This is the part I don't get. You make a statement like the one above, then follow it up with this contradictory one.


Let me also state that I'm unsure why you phrased the statement in the first quote that way. The wording doesn't "eliminate" anything. It's guaranteeing a right. In this case, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. There's nothing saying that "arms may only be kept as part of a well regulated militia" or any such nonsense. The "right" goes the other direction. It's guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms, period.


If you stop approaching rights as something the government gives, and look at them as things the government may take away, you might just suffer less confusion on issues like this. I just can't help but assume this is what you're doing when you talk about how you didn't think the intent was to eliminate arms not used in a militia. As if the 2nd amendment is telling us what we can do, rather then telling us what the government *can't* do.


Flip it around. It makes much more sense that way. It might just prevent you from seeing it in terms of eliminating the right to bear arms in one case, or granting "carte blanche" in another. The starting point is that any person may own and use any weapon he wants. Period. From that starting point, we decide what restrictions or regulations we apply. The 2nd amendment doesn't prevent this with regard to arms, however it guarantees that the government cannot completely disarm the population. They have the right to keep and bear arms. The first clause tells us *why* this right is important to protect, and by extension implies the kind of arms that should be protected (arms typical of someone in a militia, which most certainly would include handguns).

That first clause should not be argued as some kind of limit to the right though.




IMO, this is your opinion, and you're welcome to it. But I think you're dead wrong. We shouldn't be allowing people to keep arms just because it's convenient. That leads us down a path that allows lawmakers to gradually make it less convenient until they're finally eliminated. If you fail to see the constitutional right involved here, you'll fail to see why this is a huge problem.


What do you think "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means? Again. That's about as clearly defined a right as possible. Yet, by denying it exists, you're effectively eliminating it and all but ensuring that the right will continue to be infringed until there's nothing left.

You are totally out of touch with reality. With this logic, one can prove *anything* by just tossing out the pieces you don't like (the context).

And as we've seen from your other posts, you can convince yourself of anything, even making contradictory remarks a couple of posts down the thread.

Yet again, no credible opposition? Why bother continuing the argument.

A modern militia may also contain automatic weapons, grenades, RPGs, etc. Plenty of weapons which we don't allow for private ownership. In fact, the weapons we allow would make for a fairly laughable militia particularly when one considers that the point of said militia is to defend against foreign armies or else potentially threats from the domestic government (any by extension, the US military). Your average Iraqi insurgent would make for a far more qualified modern militia member than some American with the Glocks you say are so necessary.

The Second and Fourth Amendments, more than any others, have been run over by technology never dreamed of when they were written. Stating authoritively that Madison et al wanted to assure our right to modern weaponry as it exists today is little more than proving your over-inflated ego.

No. I understand intent just right. What I don't understand is why you keep reversing the direction of the issue. The framers were not making a decision as to whether to ban privately owned arms. They were guaranteeing a right for the people to privately own arms. I don't get why you keep reversing this when you write about it.




Yes. But there's a difference between carte blanche and ban Joph. The guarantee is that "the people" will be able to keep and bear arms. That certainly does not preclude the government restricting what types of arms they can bear, but the right has to exist. That's what the amendment is about. And it definitely was the "intent" of the framers.

You can certainly limit the rate of fire, barrel size, number of rounds in a magazine, etc without infringing on the basic right to keep and bear arms. But when you ban the most common type of arm, you've gone quite a bit farther, haven't you? It's not like restricting fully automatic weapons is the same as banning all handguns Joph.

It's very much similar to limiting free speech by restricting libelous or slanderous statements, but *not* passing a law that makes it illegal to post on the internet, for example. A complete handgun ban is much more like restricting an entire method of speech rather then simply limiting specific applications of speech. Yes. The analogy isn't perfect, but hopefully you get the point I'm going after here.

Here's another analogy: Imagine if there was a defined right to own and drive a car. We could reasonably place restrictions on the cars themselves, by requiring safety standards (bumpers, signals, headlights, etc), but if you were to say ban all passenger cars, allowing only work trucks, that would infringe on the core "right" itself.

I guess what I'm getting at is that it's a bit of a stretch to say that previous restrictions based on rate of fire, type and quantity of ammunition, etc somehow represents a precedent or justification for banning all handguns. IMO, those are two completely different types of things. One does not horribly infringe on the right, the other does.

Ok. Maybe the issue is over the word "ban". Or perhaps its applicability to the stated right in this case is at issue? A "ban" on shaded windows does not impact one's right to own and operate a car. A "ban" on all passenger cars does.

You're trying to equate the two as though restrictions ("bans" if you prefer) on types of ammunition, or rates of fire, or magazine size, is of the same order as a ban on handguns in the context of the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd amendment doesn't say "the right of the people to have a firing rate of 3 rounds/second shall not be infringed", nor does it say "the right of the people to be able to fire 30 shots without reloading shall not be infringed", etc...

The right is to "keep and bear arms". Very broadly, "arms" (in the context of firearms) consists of two basic categories: Long arms, and short arms (ie: pistols and rifles although shotguns also fit into the "long arms" category). To ban a whole set of those arms is a violation of the 2nd amendment in a way that banning only specific types of ammunition or magazines, or attachments, or even sub-categories (fully automatic for example) does not.


You keep equating these two things, as though both are in between a "ban" and "carte blanche ownership" and therefore are subject to somewhat arbitrary application without violating the core right at all. I simply disagree. Banning an entire form of firearm clearly is a "ban" in the context of the right itself.