Sign in to follow this  
Importunate Tom

2nd Amendment: In the home only?

Recommended Posts

The second says nothing about self defense. You should read it sometime.

What the hell good is an RPG going to do you inside the house? Mom's just gonna tell you to go outside to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second says nothing about self defense. You should read it sometime.

What the hell good is an RPG going to do you inside the house? Mom's just gonna tell you to go outside to play.

You'll put your eye out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second says nothing about self defense. You should read it sometime.

 

Justice Breyer assumed for purposes of argument in his separate dissent that it is about self defense. You should read it sometime.

 

The fourth amendment says nothing about abortion, so Roe v Wade must be wrong in your view.

 

The fifth amendment says nothing about giving private property to developers, so Kelo v New London must be too.

 

The power to regulate homegrown wheat or cannabis for personal use can not be found anywhere in Article 1, Section 8. Oops, there go Wickard v Filburn and Gonzalez v Raich.

 

The first amendment says nothing about corporations filing civil rights lawsuits. No more NAACP v Button.

 

Why do you want to tear up so many important Supreme Court decisions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second says nothing about self defense. You should read it sometime.

What the hell good is an RPG going to do you inside the house? Mom's just gonna tell you to go outside to play.

 

Spoken like someone who is genuinely interested in having his second amendment rights protected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second says nothing about self defense. You should read it sometime.

 

Justice Breyer assumed for purposes of argument in his separate dissent that it is about self defense. You should read it sometime.

 

 

he assumed for argument's sake? and that is the basis of what you think the core purpose of the second amendment.

 

too bad this version wasn't what actually made it into the bill of rights....this is what my opinion is the core purpose of the second amendment. the government is not allowed to disarm the citizens without just cause (i.e. criminal activity).

 

James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

there are any number of reasons i may choose to be armed...it's not the business of the government and i should not be made to justify exercising my right. unless they can prove i am using said arms to engage in criminal, negligent (thus putting others in danger) behavior...they can shove it up their collective asses. and that's what i think about that....without assumptions for argument sake (ffs... :rolleyes: )

we have enough gun laws, too many, imo....that right to keep and bear arms is already infringed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second says nothing about self defense. You should read it sometime.

What the hell good is an RPG going to do you inside the house? Mom's just gonna tell you to go outside to play.

 

Spoken like someone who is genuinely interested in having his second amendment rights protected.

yeah, because anyone who doesn't take you seriously must not care about their rights? you sound like you are an nra propaganda machine. does that pay well? i hear lobbyist make good coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an NRA member, elle, nor do I sit on the 7th Circuit Court. Their opinion about our rights, not mine, is the topic here.

 

I answered your question, how about answering mine? Do you agree with the 7th Circuit that the second amendment applies outside the home?

 

And how about answering your own question: what do you believe is the core purpose of the second amendment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an NRA member, elle, nor do I sit on the 7th Circuit Court. Their opinion about our rights, not mine, is the topic here.

 

I answered your question, how about answering mine? Do you agree with the 7th Circuit that the second amendment applies outside the home?

 

And how about answering your own question: what do you believe is the core purpose of the second amendment?

i answered that question a long time ago tom...and i answered mine as well dipshit, don't you fucking read?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, that's right...you are the asshole who likes to ascribe an opinion to someone then relentless follow them around arguing your own made up position....

get a fucking life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i answered that question a long time ago tom...and i answered mine as well dipshit, don't you fucking read?

 

Sorry, you did indeed answer the topic question, and I did read the answer but forgot.

 

...

Do you think the second amendment applies outside the home?

 

That seems to be a hard question around here, but the 7th Circuit answered it recently.

i believe the second amendment applies until it infringes on someone else's rights. for example....joe blow has a right to refuse access to his property (bar, business, home) by someone who is armed, if he chooses. i think i should have a right to carry my arms, weapons, guns etc(if i owned them) anywhere on my property, or public property with the exception of schools (not college)...i have an unexplainable issue with that, or anywhere else unless told otherwise by the property owner. clear? if not, let me know and i will try to clarify.

 

Clear enough, and close enough to my own views to take all the fun out of arguing with you. ;)

 

Don't move to Chicago!

 

I don't see where you answered your own question about the core purpose of the second amendment, though. Can you point me to that post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post 205 ffs

 

The second says nothing about self defense. You should read it sometime.

 

Justice Breyer assumed for purposes of argument in his separate dissent that it is about self defense. You should read it sometime.

 

 

he assumed for argument's sake? and that is the basis of what you think the core purpose of the second amendment.

 

too bad this version wasn't what actually made it into the bill of rights....this is what my opinion is the core purpose of the second amendment. the government is not allowed to disarm the citizens without just cause (i.e. criminal activity).

 

 

James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

there are any number of reasons i may choose to be armed...it's not the business of the government and i should not be made to justify exercising my right. unless they can prove i am using said arms to engage in criminal, negligent (thus putting others in danger) behavior...they can shove it up their collective asses. and that's what i think about that....without assumptions for argument sake (ffs... :rolleyes: )

we have enough gun laws, too many, imo....that right to keep and bear arms is already infringed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post 205 ffs

 

The second says nothing about self defense. You should read it sometime.

 

Justice Breyer assumed for purposes of argument in his separate dissent that it is about self defense. You should read it sometime.

 

 

he assumed for argument's sake? and that is the basis of what you think the core purpose of the second amendment.

 

too bad this version wasn't what actually made it into the bill of rights....this is what my opinion is the core purpose of the second amendment. the government is not allowed to disarm the citizens without just cause (i.e. criminal activity).

 

 

James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

there are any number of reasons i may choose to be armed...it's not the business of the government and i should not be made to justify exercising my right. unless they can prove i am using said arms to engage in criminal, negligent (thus putting others in danger) behavior...they can shove it up their collective asses. and that's what i think about that....without assumptions for argument sake (ffs... :rolleyes: )

we have enough gun laws, too many, imo....that right to keep and bear arms is already infringed.

 

 

Again a forum foul by me. I clicked on the "last post by" link instead of the "first unread" link and it took me to your second post of the morning in this thread, causing me to miss the first one. Sorry again.

 

I did not agree with Justice Breyer's dissent, so no, that is not the basis of my opinion. As I said before, my views pretty closely match the majority opinion.

 

I don't see how Madison's version differs significantly from the current one w/respect to self defense. The big difference I see is the religious objection exclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Again a forum foul by me. I clicked on the "last post by" link instead of the "first unread" link and it took me to your second post of the morning in this thread, causing me to miss the first one. Sorry again.

 

I did not agree with Justice Breyer's dissent, so no, that is not the basis of my opinion. As I said before, my views pretty closely match the majority opinion.

 

I don't see how Madison's version differs significantly from the current one w/respect to self defense. The big difference I see is the religious objection exclusion.

no, you just say the core is self defense then use the above to support your opinion....

 

forget the religious exclusion part....as per post 205...the bolded part is what i am addressing.

James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

there are any number of reasons i may choose to be armed...it's not the business of the government and i should not be made to justify exercising my right. unless they can prove i am using said arms to engage in criminal, negligent (thus putting others in danger) behavior...they can shove it up their collective asses. and that's what i think about that....without assumptions for argument sake (ffs... :rolleyes:)

we have enough gun laws, too many, imo....that right to keep and bear arms is already infringed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

carry on with your relentless stalking and ascribing false positions....it doesn't endear you to me nor make me feel you help promote my agenda (keeping my second amendment rights intact)....i have a regatta to attend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

no, you just say the core is self defense then use the above to support your opinion....

 

forget the religious exclusion part....as per post 205...the bolded part is what i am addressing.

James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

 

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;...

 

Suggesting to Ed that he read Breyer's dissent was not intended to support my position. I was just hoping to point out a self defense-related argument that he might actually read. Might set him on the path to actually reading the majority opinion.

 

I have used the majority opinion several times to support my position. Here, I'll do it again:

 

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

 

That bolded part of Madison's proposal did make it into the final version as the operative clause, which is why I don't see a big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

carry on with your relentless stalking and ascribing false positions....it doesn't endear you to me nor make me feel you help promote my agenda (keeping my second amendment rights intact)....i have a regatta to attend.

You know nothing about the Constitution, if you do not think that the First Amendment protects Tom's rights to distort someone's position, (or ascribe a position to them if they choose to avoid his discussions because of his distortions), so that he can argue against a straw man, Not everyone can answer the call to have an honest discussion with someone, so that they might learn your position and you theirs. Some seem so fearful of it that I am concerned that they might Nugent their pants if forced into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you're here, Sol, do you have an opinion on the topic question? Do you believe the 7th Circuit was right in finding that the second amendment applies outside the home?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question in this one is not whether the NAACP's corporate first amendment rights imply a right to vote, it's whether the second amendment applies outside the home. Do you think it does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.law.corne...71_0415_ZO.html

 

Rights are good, sometimes.

The question in this one is not whether the NAACP's corporate first amendment rights imply a right to vote, it's whether the second amendment applies outside the home. Do you think it does?

I do. It would be ludicrous to restrict your right to militia in order to preserve the free state to only home activities. Sometimes, not often, you will need to preserve the free state outside the home. Like at the armory or the militia mustering yard. Also, when the militia advances outside the home, they may need quartering but the 3rd amendment only allows that with the permission of the land owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.law.corne...71_0415_ZO.html

 

Rights are good, sometimes.

The question in this one is not whether the NAACP's corporate first amendment rights imply a right to vote, it's whether the second amendment applies outside the home. Do you think it does?

I do. It would be ludicrous to restrict your right to militia in order to preserve the free state to only home activities. Sometimes, not often, you will need to preserve the free state outside the home. Like at the armory or the militia mustering yard. Also, when the militia advances outside the home, they may need quartering but the 3rd amendment only allows that with the permission of the land owner.

What does that have to do with whether or not NASCAR should be able to vote?

 

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=132061&st=100#entry3994369

 

 

I think NASCAR deserves a vote... (to paraphrase the SOTU comment).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see some people who are actually useful in protecting our rights showed up. Elle was starting to get pissed at me!

 

Ed, just because I don't think taking private property from a citizen and giving it to a development company should be a "public use" under the fifth amendment does not change the fact that it is. If I can live with the reality of Kelo vs New London, can you at least try to live with the reality of Heller?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second says nothing about self defense. You should read it sometime.

You are too dumb to realize that it means self defense against an oppressive state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second says nothing about self defense. You should read it sometime.

You are too dumb to realize that it means self defense against an oppressive state.

Actually, it doesn't. Its for the collective good to maintain the free state, not the individual. Thus why we need a well regulated militia to achieve it. Individuals are not well regulated by definition, they can be regulated, but not well. Organized militias can be well regulated. Self defense implies the one, not the many. Best documented by Spock as he lay dying outside the containment shield. "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." Words to live by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to be well regulated and effective, a militia first must exist and be armed. Militia members are expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a type in common use at the time. At least see US v Miller if you won't see Heller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second says nothing about self defense. You should read it sometime.

You are too dumb to realize that it means self defense against an oppressive state.

Actually, it doesn't. Its for the collective good to maintain the free state, not the individual.

 

Nope, it says the right of the people. Which other amendments consider the people as a collective term. They are individual rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second says nothing about self defense. You should read it sometime.

You are too dumb to realize that it means self defense against an oppressive state.

Actually, it doesn't. Its for the collective good to maintain the free state, not the individual.

 

Nope, it says the right of the people. Which other amendments consider the people as a collective term. They are individual rights.

Why do you feel the need to edit my post to make your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second says nothing about self defense. You should read it sometime.

You are too dumb to realize that it means self defense against an oppressive state.

Actually, it doesn't. Its for the collective good to maintain the free state, not the individual.

 

Nope, it says the right of the people. Which other amendments consider the people as a collective term. They are individual rights.

Why do you feel the need to edit my post to make your point?

 

I just eliminated some of the drivel. Everything I quoted was from your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I just eliminated some of the drivel. Everything I quoted was from your post.

But edited selectively. Which means you wanted to take things out of context for the reading public. That means you have lost this argument. Victory is Mine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I just eliminated some of the drivel. Everything I quoted was from your post.

But edited selectively. Which means you wanted to take things out of context for the reading public. That means you have lost this argument. Victory is Mine!

Selective edits? Sounds like Tom!

 

"No Americans in Baghdad!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just eliminated some of the drivel. Everything I quoted was from your post.

But edited selectively. Which means you wanted to take things out of context for the reading public. That means you have lost this argument. Victory is Mine!

Selective edits? Sounds like Tom!

 

"No Americans in Baghdad!"

It seems to be there MO. They also do it to the 2nd amendment, conveniently editing out and ignoring the first, most significant part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just eliminated everything from your post. I quoted some of the drivel .

 

See how this works?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just eliminated everything from your post. I quoted some of the drivel .

 

See how this works?

The Nuge dodged the draft by a process of elimination too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just eliminated everything from your post. I quoted some of the drivel .

 

See how this works?

 

 

Why, yes, you needed to actually change words around because you couldn't comprehend it otherwise. I didn't say I quoted all of the drivel.

 

Sort of like woefully, willful ignorance of the meaning of militia.

 

Now, go see if Sol will give your car one of those auto fellatio things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.6

 

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990) :

 

“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . [its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment , and by the First and Second Amendment s, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment s, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

 

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

 

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

 

You know, Ed, there is a thread on the Heller case if you want to reargue that one, but if you want to do it here that's fine too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justice Stevens, dissenting in the Heller case, opened by saying this about the second amendment:

 

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

 

He goes on to argue:

 

the Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia.

...

the Miller Court unanimously concluded that the Second Amendment did not apply to the possession of a firearm that did not have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”

 

The majority response:

 

Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.

 

That is obviously true. To get to the question of whether Miller's shotgun was a protected weapon, his right to have it despite having no connection to any organized militia must have been a foregone conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caption contest?

 

28gutjc.jpg

 

How about "Three Men Who Have Nothing To Do With The 7th Circuit Court Decision"?

 

Or maybe "Another Mark K Distraction"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, that's right...you are the asshole who likes to ascribe an opinion to someone then relentless follow them around arguing your own made up position....

get a fucking life.

 

Yeah, as much as I agree with Tom's position, he does get awfully annoyingly pedantic about it.

 

Seriously Tom, you have made your point..... about 4 a year ago. Let it go, brother.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, that's right...you are the asshole who likes to ascribe an opinion to someone then relentless follow them around arguing your own made up position....

get a fucking life.

 

Yeah, as much as I agree with Tom's position, he does get awfully annoyingly pedantic about it.

 

Seriously Tom, you have made your point..... about 4 a year ago. Let it go, brother.......

it isn't tom's position that i take issue with (though i partially disagree with it, namely that the core lawful purpose of the second is self defense), he is free to have it...it is when he makes up a position for someone else then relentless follows them around arguing against the position he made up for them. tedious to the extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, that's right...you are the asshole who likes to ascribe an opinion to someone then relentless follow them around arguing your own made up position....

get a fucking life.

 

Yeah, as much as I agree with Tom's position, he does get awfully annoyingly pedantic about it.

 

Seriously Tom, you have made your point..... about 4 a year ago. Let it go, brother.......

 

The topic case was decided in December and is probably on the way to an en banc hearing by the full 7th Circuit and/or a hearing before the Supreme Court. It's a current issue and I'll let it go when the flow of new gun control proposals stops and the issues have been decided.

 

Elle,

Would it be less annoying if I posted pictures of men with eye bandages or discussed Moore v Madigan in relation to hypothetical corporate suffrage? Maybe a one-word bump of every thread mentioning guns? Those seem to be what responsible and helpful posters do, but I don't see the value in it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it isn't tom's position that i take issue with (though i partially disagree with it, namely that the core lawful purpose of the second is self defense),

 

tedious to the extreme.

 

"tedious", Thank you..... That was the word I was trying to think of.

 

But you seriously don't think one of the core parts of the 2A is about self-defense? Can you elaborate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it isn't tom's position that i take issue with (though i partially disagree with it, namely that the core lawful purpose of the second is self defense),

 

tedious to the extreme.

 

"tedious", Thank you..... That was the word I was trying to think of.

 

But you seriously don't think one of the core parts of the 2A is about self-defense? Can you elaborate?

yes, i can.

my opinion is that the core purpose of the second is to insure and protect my right to keep and bear arms...simply that....for whatever reason i choose, which is my own business....

i may want a gun for sport; for defense of self, country, other persons or property; for killing vermin, food, maintaining animal populations, euthanising animals...etc etc....not one is a less legitimate core reason that another. furthermore...pinning the right down to one use makes it easier to remove by whatever excuse someone wishing to deprive me of the right uses...make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, that's right...you are the asshole who likes to ascribe an opinion to someone then relentless follow them around arguing your own made up position....

get a fucking life.

 

Yeah, as much as I agree with Tom's position, he does get awfully annoyingly pedantic about it.

 

Seriously Tom, you have made your point..... about 4 a year ago. Let it go, brother.......

 

The topic case was decided in December and is probably on the way to an en banc hearing by the full 7th Circuit and/or a hearing before the Supreme Court. It's a current issue and I'll let it go when the flow of new gun control proposals stops and the issues have been decided.

 

Elle,

Would it be less annoying if I posted pictures of men with eye bandages or discussed Moore v Madigan in relation to hypothetical corporate suffrage? Maybe a one-word bump of every thread mentioning guns? Those seem to be what responsible and helpful posters do, but I don't see the value in it. ;)/>

you see a value in creating a position for someone then arguing against it? intriguing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it isn't tom's position that i take issue with (though i partially disagree with it, namely that the core lawful purpose of the second is self defense),

 

tedious to the extreme.

 

"tedious", Thank you..... That was the word I was trying to think of.

 

But you seriously don't think one of the core parts of the 2A is about self-defense? Can you elaborate?

yes, i can.

my opinion is that the core purpose of the second is to insure and protect my right to keep and bear arms...simply that....for whatever reason i choose, which is my own business....

i may want a gun for sport; for defense of self, country, other persons or property; for killing vermin, food, maintaining animal populations, euthanising animals...etc etc....not one is a less legitimate core reason that another. furthermore...pinning the right down to one use makes it easier to remove by whatever excuse someone wishing to deprive me of the right uses...make sense?

you can see people doing this all the time...for example, self defense...they will then erode the right by saying you have the military or police or a fence or alarm system or locks blah blah and don't NEED a gun.... you don't NEED a gun so you can't have one unless government allows you. that kinda infringes on your rights, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could anyone possibly know what their position is on a particular issue, without having someone assign a position to them?

 

Creepy.

 

 

Creeeeeee

 

py.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, that's right...you are the asshole who likes to ascribe an opinion to someone then relentless follow them around arguing your own made up position....

get a fucking life.

 

Yeah, as much as I agree with Tom's position, he does get awfully annoyingly pedantic about it.

 

Seriously Tom, you have made your point..... about 4 a year ago. Let it go, brother.......

 

The topic case was decided in December and is probably on the way to an en banc hearing by the full 7th Circuit and/or a hearing before the Supreme Court. It's a current issue and I'll let it go when the flow of new gun control proposals stops and the issues have been decided.

 

Elle,

Would it be less annoying if I posted pictures of men with eye bandages or discussed Moore v Madigan in relation to hypothetical corporate suffrage? Maybe a one-word bump of every thread mentioning guns? Those seem to be what responsible and helpful posters do, but I don't see the value in it. ;)/>

you see a value in creating a position for someone then arguing against it? intriguing.

 

You must be responding to someone else. Nothing in my post that you quoted says any such thing. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my opinion is that the core purpose of the second is to insure and protect my right to keep and bear arms...simply that....for whatever reason i choose, which is my own business....

i may want a gun for sport; for defense of self, country, other persons or property; for killing vermin, food, maintaining animal populations, euthanising animals...etc etc....not one is a less legitimate core reason that another. furthermore...pinning the right down to one use makes it easier to remove by whatever excuse someone wishing to deprive me of the right uses...make sense?

 

I saw pretty much the same arguments today in this thread on a gun forum.

 

The Heller majority addressed the point this way:

 

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.

 

Most of my guns are for killing animals and would be of limited use in other applications and only one is really a dedicated self-defense gun that is good for little else, so I have some sympathy with that point of view. I would point out that when weighing any compelling governmental interest in restricting rights, the courts consider the citizens' interests and our most compelling one is, in the words of the Heller majority, "protecting against both public and private violence."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tom....did you or did you not write that you believe the core lawful purpose of the second amendment is to protect the pre-existing natural right of self defense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tom....did you or did you not write that you believe the core lawful purpose of the second amendment is to protect the pre-existing natural right of self defense?

 

I did. Well, I also wrote that it was target practice within the home, but was just making fun of Olsonist.

 

The core purpose does not exclude other purposes, you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tom....did you or did you not write that you believe the core lawful purpose of the second amendment is to protect the pre-existing natural right of self defense?

 

I did. Well, I also wrote that it was target practice within the home, but was just making fun of Olsonist.

 

The core purpose does not exclude other purposes, you know.

ok i disagree with you...i believe the core purpose is (the following part you wrote) to prevent the government from disarming the people.

 

if you continue to insist it is the first part and not the second part you make is soooo much easier for the government to remove your right to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court is not known for listening to me, nor are lower courts, which is why even Judge Williams, making the case that the second amendment applies only in the home, referenced the core right to target practice within the home.

 

Oops, Olsonized it again. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court is not known for listening to me, nor are lower courts, which is why even Judge Williams, making the case that the second amendment applies only in the home, referenced the core right to target practice within the home.

 

Oops, Olsonized it again. ;)

if no one listens to you, stfu. you run your mouth, so to speak, 24/7 over the second amendment here ...you cite other forums so it's likely you are running your mouth there as well....what i am telling you is that your blather does more harm than help, imo. and i've told you why. you aren't interested in discussion....that is increasingly obvious. you are an agenda pusher, a propaganda machine....and counter productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court is not known for listening to me, nor are lower courts, which is why even Judge Williams, making the case that the second amendment applies only in the home, referenced the core right to target practice within the home.

 

Oops, Olsonized it again. ;)

if no one listens to you, stfu. you run your mouth, so to speak, 24/7 over the second amendment here ...you cite other forums so it's likely you are running your mouth there as well....what i am telling you is that your blather does more harm than help, imo. and i've told you why. you aren't interested in discussion....that is increasingly obvious. you are an agenda pusher, a propaganda machine....and counter productive.

What I enjoy most about Tom is when people ignore him, he just responds to his own posts. And if they still ignore him, he pastes posts from other threads in his ignored threads to try to get response. Then responds to them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court is not known for listening to me, nor are lower courts, which is why even Judge Williams, making the case that the second amendment applies only in the home, referenced the core right to target practice within the home.

 

Oops, Olsonized it again. ;)

if no one listens to you, stfu. you run your mouth, so to speak, 24/7 over the second amendment here ...you cite other forums so it's likely you are running your mouth there as well....what i am telling you is that your blather does more harm than help, imo. and i've told you why. you aren't interested in discussion....that is increasingly obvious. you are an agenda pusher, a propaganda machine....and counter productive.

What I enjoy most about Tom is when people ignore him, he just responds to his own posts. And if they still ignore him, he pastes posts from other threads in his ignored threads to try to get response. Then responds to them!

admittedly, that is very entertaining. let's watch him do that some more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court is not known for listening to me, nor are lower courts, which is why even Judge Williams, making the case that the second amendment applies only in the home, referenced the core right to target practice within the home.

 

Oops, Olsonized it again. ;)/>

if no one listens to you, stfu. you run your mouth, so to speak, 24/7 over the second amendment here ...you cite other forums so it's likely you are running your mouth there as well....what i am telling you is that your blather does more harm than help, imo. and i've told you why. you aren't interested in discussion....that is increasingly obvious. you are an agenda pusher, a propaganda machine....and counter productive.

 

I brought up this case over here

 

 

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=137657&st=100#entry3969643

 

Because when federal courts are defining the limits of our rights I think we should take notice and discuss it. That's why I keep asking people about this case. It's hard for me to see how someone could claim to care about our Bill of Rights and yet have no opinion on whether the second amendment applies outside the home. Anyway, thanks for at least answering the question, even if you do think it is an issue that would be better off ignored. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Wapner at 4. Definitely a commerce clause issue. Heller. Definitely a good driver. Boxer shorts. K-Mart! 2nd amendment doesn't apply outdoors. Miller. QANTAS. QANTAS never crashed.

January 12, 1965. Very snowy that day. 7.2 inches of snow that day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Wapner at 4. Definitely a commerce clause issue. Heller. Definitely a good driver. Boxer shorts. K-Mart! 2nd amendment doesn't apply outdoors. Miller. QANTAS. QANTAS never crashed.

January 12, 1965. Very snowy that day. 7.2 inches of snow that day.

 

539w.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illinois has introduced legislation in response to the 7th Circuit Court order in Moore v Madigan. The official summary:

 

Referred to as the Illinois Public Safety Act. Creates the Gun Safety and Responsibility Act. Allows State Police to issue a concealed carry license to a resident at least 21 who: (1) is eligible to possess firearms; (2) meets qualifications and training; and (3) has particularized need. $100 fee. License valid throughout the State subject to prohibitions for 4 years. Creates the State Police Firearm Services Fund for duties under the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (FOID), concealed carry licensing, and assault weapon registration. Amends the State Police Act to authorize emergency procurement necessary to implement these gun measures. Amends the FOID Act to require background checks for the transfer of firearms, except to family member, by operation of law, or gun show. Amends the Criminal Code of 2012. Bans possession, delivery, sale, and purchase of assault weapons, attachments, and .50 caliber rifles and cartridges, except possession of weapons registered in time provided. Provides exemptions. Prohibits delivery, sale, or purchase of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Provides exemptions. Prohibits sale, delivery, or possession of a firearm to or by a person prohibited from possessing a firearm. Raises minimum imprisonment for gunrunning. Creates failure to report a lost or stolen firearm offense. Requires safe firearm storage where a minor (now under 14) or person prohibited from possessing a firearm may gain access. Requires firearm owners to keep records. Amends various Acts regarding suspension and revocation of FOID cards and concealed carry licenses. Makes conforming changes. Effective immediately.

 

Emphasis mine. In addition to the topic of this thread going to the Supreme Court, I expect we will hear from them on whether citizens must show a particularized need to exercise 2nd amendment rights. The Circuit Courts seem to be in conflict on that subject, and resolving such conflicts is one of the things the SCOTUS does. The 2nd Circuit said New York's law requiring citizens to demonstrate a need is OK.

 

Maryland is in the 4th Circuit, and they said this:

 

“If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government’s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a “good and substantial reason” why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.

 

(Memorandum, Civil Case No. L-10-2068, Raymond Wollard v. Terrence Sheridan, Maryland’s handgun regulation statute, dated 3/2/2012.)

 

The 7th Circuit has said the government must make some provision to exercise second amendment rights outside the home, and their response has been, "OK, but only for those who can prove they need those rights." I doubt that argument will work on the Supreme Court, but you never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illinois has introduced legislation in response to the 7th Circuit Court order in Moore v Madigan. The official summary:

 

Referred to as the Illinois Public Safety Act. Creates the Gun Safety and Responsibility Act. Allows State Police to issue a concealed carry license to a resident at least 21 who: (1) is eligible to possess firearms; (2) meets qualifications and training; and (3) has particularized need. $100 fee. License valid throughout the State subject to prohibitions for 4 years. Creates the State Police Firearm Services Fund for duties under the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (FOID), concealed carry licensing, and assault weapon registration. Amends the State Police Act to authorize emergency procurement necessary to implement these gun measures. Amends the FOID Act to require background checks for the transfer of firearms, except to family member, by operation of law, or gun show. Amends the Criminal Code of 2012. Bans possession, delivery, sale, and purchase of assault weapons, attachments, and .50 caliber rifles and cartridges, except possession of weapons registered in time provided. Provides exemptions. Prohibits delivery, sale, or purchase of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Provides exemptions. Prohibits sale, delivery, or possession of a firearm to or by a person prohibited from possessing a firearm. Raises minimum imprisonment for gunrunning. Creates failure to report a lost or stolen firearm offense. Requires safe firearm storage where a minor (now under 14) or person prohibited from possessing a firearm may gain access. Requires firearm owners to keep records. Amends various Acts regarding suspension and revocation of FOID cards and concealed carry licenses. Makes conforming changes. Effective immediately.

 

Emphasis mine. In addition to the topic of this thread going to the Supreme Court, I expect we will hear from them on whether citizens must show a particularized need to exercise 2nd amendment rights. The Circuit Courts seem to be in conflict on that subject, and resolving such conflicts is one of the things the SCOTUS does. The 2nd Circuit said New York's law requiring citizens to demonstrate a need is OK.

 

Maryland is in the 4th Circuit, and they said this:

 

“If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government’s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a “good and substantial reason” why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.

 

(Memorandum, Civil Case No. L-10-2068, Raymond Wollard v. Terrence Sheridan, Maryland’s handgun regulation statute, dated 3/2/2012.)

 

The 7th Circuit has said the government must make some provision to exercise second amendment rights outside the home, and their response has been, "OK, but only for those who can prove they need those rights." I doubt that argument will work on the Supreme Court, but you never know.

 

see....this was a helpful post, tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured you would like Judge Legg's quote, elle. The thing is, that's far from settled law at this point, and as I said, the 2nd Circuit reached the opposite conclusion. They said New York laws requiring citizens show a need to get a permit are OK. I'll probably be talking about that case in the months and years ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured you would like Judge Legg's quote, elle. The thing is, that's far from settled law at this point, and as I said, the 2nd Circuit reached the opposite conclusion. They said New York laws requiring citizens show a need to get a permit are OK. I'll probably be talking about that case in the months and years ahead.

 

please spare us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured you would like Judge Legg's quote, elle. The thing is, that's far from settled law at this point, and as I said, the 2nd Circuit reached the opposite conclusion. They said New York laws requiring citizens show a need to get a permit are OK. I'll probably be talking about that case in the months and years ahead.

indeed....perhaps it is time to dredge up a thread wherein the discussion is infringing on voters' rights....i seem to recall some of the people who want me to justify exercising my right to keep and bear arms dislike anyone having to prove their right to vote....and vice versa....

exercising rights are good.....sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured you would like Judge Legg's quote, elle. The thing is, that's far from settled law at this point, and as I said, the 2nd Circuit reached the opposite conclusion. They said New York laws requiring citizens show a need to get a permit are OK. I'll probably be talking about that case in the months and years ahead.

indeed....perhaps it is time to dredge up a thread wherein the discussion is infringing on voters' rights....i seem to recall some of the people who want me to justify exercising my right to keep and bear arms dislike anyone having to prove their right to vote....and vice versa....

exercising rights are good.....sometimes.

 

Another Favre fan? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The topic case was decided in December and is probably on the way to an en banc hearing by the full 7th Circuit and/or a hearing before the Supreme Court....

 

Update: guns will soon be allowed outside homes in Illinois.

 

The 7th Circuit decided to let the Moore vs Madigan result stand.

 

The ruling came in Moore v. Madigan, a case filed by SAF. The December opinion that now stands was written by Judge Richard Posner, who gave the Illinois legislature 180 days to “craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment…on the carrying of guns in public.” That clock is ticking, noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.

 

“Illinois lawmakers need to create some kind of licensing system or face the prospect of not having any regulations at all when Judge Posner’s deadline arrives,” Gottlieb said. “They need to act. They can no longer run and hide from this mandate.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured you would like Judge Legg's quote, elle. The thing is, that's far from settled law at this point, and as I said, the 2nd Circuit reached the opposite conclusion. They said New York laws requiring citizens show a need to get a permit are OK. I'll probably be talking about that case in the months and years ahead.

Thanks Tom, unlike some others I appreciate your take on the subject and your ability to pull case law of interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago Tribune article on the 7th Circuit decision

 

...Madigan has not made a decision on whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, said Maura Possley, Madigan spokeswoman.

In a statement, the attorney general encouraged state lawmakers to write a new law that fits within the parameters of the initial decision calling for concealed carry in Illinois.

 

...

 

The appeals court action officially rejected Madigan’s request for a rehearing by the full court, but the denial came with a stinging dissent from four of the nine members of the appeals court who reviewed the matter. The original order came down from a three-member panel that also had a split vote.

 

The arguments made in the dissent, written by Judge David Hamilton, could bolster Madigan’s cause if she appeals to the nation’s high court.

 

“The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether .. the individual right to keep and bear arms at home under the Second Amendment extends beyond the home,” Hamilton wrote.

 

Illinois is the only state in the nation that does not allow citizens to carry weapons in public in some form.

 

And then there were none...

 

I actually hope she does try to take it to the Supreme Court, and that they accept the case. Judge Hamilton is correct that they have not explicitly ruled on the question of whether the second amendment applies outside the home, because that issue has never been before them. Taking the failure to rule on an issue that has never been presented to them as proof that the right does not exist outside the home is a peculiar interpretation to say the least, and I have a feeling they would lose badly in the Supreme Court, possibly 9-0. I think it is more likely that the Supreme Court would simply refuse to hear the case and let the 7th Circuit ruling stand, since there is no conflict among the Circuit Courts on this issue and the issue has been resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...(Did we translate the 2nd yet?)

 

 

Well, the 7th Circuit has established that it applies outside the home as well as inside and the Supreme Court has identified the core lawful purpose of the right, but I would say no, we are still only beginning to figure out what it really means in practice. The process will take decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A man who violated Chicago's unconstitutional law says his case should be thrown out.

 

His attorney, Matt Fakhoury, said the case should be dismissed because the law Haddad broke was found to be unconstitutional and because his actions would be legal in any other state.

 

"He did everything as a lawful citizen," Fakhoury said. "The courts ruled that the law, as it stands now, is unconstitutional because it does not allow for law-abiding citizens to (own and carry) a weapon. ... There's not a scratch on his record."

 

Illinois was the last state with a concealed weapons ban when a federal appeals court tossed out the law in December and gave legislators six months to revise it to allow people to carry guns legally. The Illinois attorney general could decide to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Haddad, a 29-year-old married father of three, said he legally obtained an Illinois Firearm Owner's Identification card and a .45-caliber Glock pistol after a man jumped on his car and attacked him with a wiper blade on Chicago's North Side in early 2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second says nothing about self defense. You should read it sometime.

What the hell good is an RPG going to do you inside the house? Mom's just gonna tell you to go outside to play.

 

Spoken like someone who is genuinely interested in having his second amendment rights protected.

NO, you could put someone's eye out with that thing!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on the meaning of the second amendment from the 4th Circuit. This time they upheld Maryland's need-based licensing system for carrying guns outside the home.

 

The case is Woollard v. Gallagher (4th Cir. Mar. 21, 2013).

 

UPDATE: The court claims that it’s not deciding whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in self-defense extends to carrying a gun outside the home. Rather, the court concludes that, even if such a right exists, Maryland’s licensing scheme — which requires a “good and substantial” reason for a license to carry and which doesn’t treat a general desire for self-defense as an adequate reason — passes intermediate scrutiny.

 

But it seems to me that means the court is thereby deciding that the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t extend to carrying outside the home for self-defense. If a court lets the government deny the ability to carry guns outside the home for self-defense to nearly everybody, the court is in essence saying there is no such right to carry.

 

A constitutional right that can be trumped in some of its applications under intermediate scrutiny (or for that matter strict scrutiny) is a right, albeit a qualified one; consider, for instance, the right to engage in commercial speech, or the right to be free of sex discrimination. But a constitutional right that can be trumped in nearly all its applications, under whatever level of scrutiny, is not really a right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2nd Amendment needs to be amended. Right now the interpretations are all over the ballpark and they are skewed in every way. All of the wackos are interpreting the 2nd Amendment to mean that they can own ANY gun, unlimited ammunition, etc. and all in the name of being armed to fight the government of the U.S.. I think we need gun controls across the board. Too many people getting killed by the wackos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2nd Amendment needs to be amended. Right now the interpretations are all over the ballpark and they are skewed in every way. All of the wackos are interpreting the 2nd Amendment to mean that they can own ANY gun, unlimited ammunition, etc. and all in the name of being armed to fight the government of the U.S.. I think we need gun controls across the board. Too many people getting killed by the wackos.

 

Carry your thought thru to its logical conclusion: What will you have to restrict, how, and to whom, and what will be the probable effect of your plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites