For all those "interpreters" of the Second Amendment, here's a question for you:

[Playinghardball]

Found on the Occupy the NRA Facebook page

[clarice]

1. Point ? nt

[HangOnKids]

17. Do You Have One?

[clarice]

20. One what ? nt

[Zoeisright]

69. Dense?

[clarice]

126. No, this is Clarice. nt

[hack89]

2. No. Fortunately the 2A protects an individual right

refer to Heller if you have any questions.

[leftyohiolib]

3. heller only gives you the right to a handgun INSIDE the home. in the heller decision scalia said

this doesnt mean you are allowed ANY weapon any where

[hack89]

4. Never said it did. It did not, however, link gun ownership to membership in a militia.

Heller defines an individual right to self defense using a handgun in your home.

[leftyohiolib]

7. the 1st part of it does, the 2a doesnt start with '...' it's provisional based on a well-regulated

being neccessary

[hack89]

8. Heller says otherwise. Go take it up with the Supreme Court.

I can't help you out here.

[apocalypsehow]

15. "Go take it up with five right-wing, GOP-appointed members of the Supreme Court." <--There;

fixed it for you.

[hack89]

18. That was very kind of you. Thanks. nt

[hack89]

22. The President and the party platform say the 2A supports an individual right

does that also make you vomit?

[apocalypsehow]

25. Now the desperate attempt to change the subject. Typical & Textbook. n/t.

[hack89]

28. So the President is supporting a RW view of the 2A?

because isn't saying the 2A supports an individual right indicative of the NRA and the RW?

Not going to start back tracking now, are you? Is the president and the party platform wrong?

[apocalypsehow]

31. Changing the subject is not gonna work: once we get five liberals on USSC, *Heller* is overturned.

Period. And you well know it.

[hack89]

38. Ok Nostradamus

when all you have left is to predict the future then the argument is over. We will just have to wait and see., won't we?

[apocalypsehow]

43. Wait, not "see": being on the right side of history means my fellow progressives and I will have to

wait for this country to turn full Blue, but we already "see." The future is with our side, not the NRA's. Better get used to it.

[hack89]

44. Shouldn't you change the Democratic party platform first?

before you worry about the NRA?

[apocalypsehow]

47. It's going to be great day when we have five progressives on the high court, and *Heller* is

sent to the dustbin of history. Better get used to it.

[Lizzie Poppet]

77. When pigs fly.

Assuming the new liberal justice(s) are competent and unwilling to allow partisanship to override legal and linguistic rigor, no way they overturn that precedent.

And if they do, the next time the political winds blow the other way, it'll get changed back. Horrible scenario...

[derby378]

88. Weren't there also people who predicted ROE V. WADE was going to get overturned?

It's still the law of the land, I hear. Gun-control supporters better get used to Heller, because it's here to stay. Forever.

[Lizzie Poppet]

92. Agreed.

The SCOTUS occasionally overturns a precedent set at that level...but not very damn often. And definitely not one with such overwhelming justification...

[apocalypsehow]

96. Oh, it's going to be overturned alright - soon as we get a fifth progressive justice. n/t.

[Lizzie Poppet]

98. Suuuuuure it is.

You really have no concept about how all that works, do you?

[apocalypsehow]

100. Yep - it is. By jove, you're catching on. n/t.

[Bake]

110. I love how cocksure you guys are about that.

"Yeah, we're gonna re-take the House and then we'll take all the guns!"

"Once we get five liberals ... Heller is overturned."

Your certainty is at least entertaining.

Bake

[apocalypsehow]

113. ^^^Check this out folks^^^ "you guys" = Liberals and Progressives, Democrats in general.

Very telling, no?

[Bake]

128. No, "you guys" as in gun grabbers.

I'm a Democrat. And a progressive who favors reasonable gun control measures, but not banning all gun ownership like some of you do.

Don't put words in my mouth, thank you very much.

But nice try, and thanks for playing.

Bake

[apocalypsehow]

129. No, "you guys" is exactly as I stated it above - I've seen your posts on the matter endless times

before, and it offers context. Bet you wish advanced search would simply stay down, doncha?

"...but not banning all gun ownership like some of you do."

Link for me, please, one reply or OP of mine ever that has called for, advocated, or otherwise hinted anything about "banning all gun ownership."

As you can't, I wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath waiting on you to back up that false assertion. In point of fact, I am a gun owner - just not an NRA cuddler and assault rifle obsessive like our "pro gun progressives."*

"I'm a Democrat"

Uh-huh.

"But nice try, and thanks for playing."

Plagiarism and projection, all in one sentence. Funny stuff.

[Bake]

130. And you, please, point to where I referred to "you guys" as all liberals/Democrats.

Jerk. I've been a Democrat longer than you've been alive.

Also point to ANY post of mine where I have defended the NRA OR assault rifles. You can't. In fact, I favor an assault weapons ban and have stated so repeatedly.

You're not only a jerk, you're a liar.

Bake

[apocalypsehow]

132. And now juvenile name-calling and personal attacks, as the truth proves embarrassing.

Funny, if predictable, stuff.



And textbook.

[Bake]

133. But you still can't point to any post of mine where I defended the NRA or assault rifles

And you still can't point to any post (or demonstrate by any stretch of logic) how "you guys" refers to all liberals/progressives/Democrats.

So you're still lying and now evading the question. Put up or shut up. I won't hold my breath however.

Bake

[apocalypsehow]

134. Whatever you say. Facts say otherwise, however, and you're really not fooling about *anyone*. n/t.

[Bake]

135. Then show the facts.

Come on. Do it. But you can't, becuase your "facts" don't exist.

I'm done with you.

Bake

[apocalypsehow]

136. Asked & answered. *Repeatedly*.

"I'm done with you."

Because the facts have proven - and keep proving - you wrong. Your concession is duly noted, if a bit overdue.

[Bake]

137. You have proven nothing except that you are a liar.

And a douchebag.

Bake

[Bake]

91. Well, until the makeup of the Court changes, what it says is the LAW.

See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison.

Bake

[apocalypsehow]

99. Well, so what? So were Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. One more progressive justice and Heller

is gone. Period. And, when that comes, which it will, good riddance to that decision based upon right-wing jurisprudence.

[Bake]

108. And who exactly is going to appoint a progressive Justice?

Our Repub-lite President? Good luck with that.

And even if he does, there's no guarantee the Court will reverse itself. Some Justices still respect stare decisis.

So we shall see.

Bake

[apocalypsehow]

112. If you don't consider Justice's Sotomayor and Kagan progressives, then I can't help you.

But I'll tell you this, sport: when we get one more Sotomayor or Kagan or Breyer or Ginsburg, Heller is GONE. Go on supporting an indefensible right-wing majority - Scalia writing the 5-4 decision - all you wish. The vast majority of DU'ers feel otherwise.

[Lizzie Poppet]

33. No, it doesn't.

Leaving aside the legal aspect (because it's not my field...), linguistically, the introductory clause of the amendment does NOT act to create a group to which the subject of the main clause is exclusively reserved. That would require different language.

[leftyohiolib]

45. linquistically? wow that's some clutching at straws- it's as if all those words before the

"the rights of the people to bear arms..." had no meaning at all to the provision- there just there to take up space - how delusional

[apocalypsehow]

50. That's about all the "RKBA enthusiast" side has got: twisting of consitutional history and language,

and full-throated support for a right-wing Scalia decision that distorted the plain language of the 2nd amendment. Get five progressives on the court, and the *Heller* mis-ruling will be overturned.

[leftyohiolib]

57. what do they think all those letters in front of 'the right of the people ........" mean?

[apocalypsehow]

104. They try desperately to explain "well regulated militia" away, because it puts paid to the bogus

claim that the 2nd amendment confers an "individual," as opposed to a collective right. They know that the plain language of the amendment makes it clear it only applies to states organizing National Guards, so they simply play semantics games and make history up.

It's really quite hilarious.

[Bake]

109. Wow. I didn't know the National Guard existed when they wrote the 2nd Amendment ...

Bake

[jmg257]

125. It didn't. But it does now, and is, by law enacted by the people, the new well-regulated militia.

Sure enough us citizens were given a bone being called "unorganized" militia, but clearly our role there - armed or otherwise - is no longer thought necessary for the security of a free state.

[leftyohiolib]

118. you think that's funny read the twisting going on in reply 74

[Lizzie Poppet]

74. If that were my actual opinion and not your strawman, you might have a point.

But it's not. So you don't.

The introductory clause does indeed have a meaniong...but not the one you may think it does. It does NOT act as an unconditional modifier of the main clause. In other words, while it establishes the existence of a militia as a rationale for protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it does not restrict the right to only a subset (tthe militia) of the set described (the people). The right is instead clearly and unequivocally ascribed to the larger set.

But if you'd rather erect strawmen and sling insults ("delusional&quot , then knock yourself out. I'll respond accordingly. That is to say, probably not at all...

[leftyohiolib]

117. if they wanted everyone to have guns the 1st part of the amendment wouldnt be there.

the intro does have meaning and it is the one im thinking of. it is a conditional sentence. if you dont care to respond that's fine but you are wrong.

[apocalypsehow]

35. Exactly right - it states PRE-CONDITIONS for exercise of the "right," i.e., belonging to a National

Guard or other organized "militia" by the states. It confers no INDIVIDUAL "right" whatsoever.

[bighart]

72. Constitutional definition of militia:

The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, which is presently defined by the Militia Act of 1903 to consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.(That is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft.) Former members of the armed forces up to age 65 are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2]

I AM NOT NOW NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN A GUN OWNER.

Just thought both of the above were worth mentioning.

[jmg257]

76. Constitutional definition of militia: National Guard these days.

They are the "organized" militia, and so are the only ones "well-regulated". Also the only militia specifically mandated to be called forth in federal service.

Of course they are federal and not state entities, but that is what the people wanted.

[bighart]

78. Per the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[jmg257]

79. Thanks. As I said, only one of those is organized per federal regulations: AKA Well-regulated.

And also the only one to be called forth in federal service per the constitutional enumerations:

In 10 USC s333

(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies. - (1) The
President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to -
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United
States
(i) domestic violence
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence,
unlawful combination, or conspiracy
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or
possession,
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States

[Lizzie Poppet]

75. LOL. You got it exactly backwards.

It ascribes the right to "the people." The militia is a subset drawn from that larger set. The language of the amendment would require some specific additions or modifications in order to establish membership in a militia as a precondition. Instead, the only precondition that the actual language establishes (by necessary implication) is that the RKBA apply to "the people." Your interpretation constitutes a "denial of the antecedent" fallacy. Look it up.

From a linguistic standpoint, I could give a fuck what a Supreme Court Justice thinks. They're amateurs in that field (like you).

[apocalypsehow]

101. Nope, got it exactly correct, all that meaningless verbiage in your reply notwithstanding. n/t.

[Lizzie Poppet]

103. Of course that verbiage was "meaningless" to you.

You made it obvious long ago that reading comprehension's not your strong suit. I understand why you didn't bother with any kind of factual, substantive counter-argument. It's as obvious as a hippo in a tutu that you are utterly ignorant of the subject and wouldn't have the slightest idea even where to begin.

Not that this seems to stop you from spewing horseshit in positively Coulteresque fashion...

[apocalypsehow]

116. No, it was meaningless because it was meaningless. And continues to be. But nice try. n/t.

[Lizzie Poppet]

120. QED

Repeat until it sinks in...

[slackmaster]

62. Heller doesn't give anyone any rights

It affirms that the state can't deny you the right to keep a handgun in your home.

[leftyohiolib]

39. again - heller only allows you to have a handgun in the home - and again scalia said this doesnt

mean you can carry any gun anywhere\- go take that up with him

[hack89]

40. What does that have to do with the OP?

the OP is not making that distinction and I have already agreed with you about Heller. What point are you trying to make here?

[leftyohiolib]

51. maybe i misunderstood youwhen you said "It did not, however, link gun ownership to membership in a

militia." i thought you were refering to 2a perhaps you were refering to heller in which case i apologize for my mis-understanding

[hack89]

53. I was referring to Heller. Not a problem. nt

[apocalypsehow]

5. What they hang their hat on is five right-wing, GOP-appointed USSC justices. Once we get five

progressives/liberals on the court, Heller is GONE - and the Second amendment is back to being interpreted properly as a collective right of the states to organize National Guards, just as those who wrote that section of the Bill of Rights intended.

[hack89]

6. Just like the Scalia court quickly overturned Roe v Wade ... oh wait a second.

once precedence is set, the SC does not change its mind quickly, even after the ideological composition of the court changes drastically. Look at how many anti-choice justices are on the court right and then explain why Roe v Wade is nowhere close to being overturned.

[premium]

10. Correct me if I'm in error,

but didn't all nine justices agree it was an individual right not connected to militia service?

[petronius]

67. Yes, they all agreed that it protects an individual and not a collective right

From the Scalia opinion (just one sample):

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

From the Stevens dissent:

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.

From the Breyer dissent:

I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1)?The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

The question is the degree to which restrictions and limitations on this individual right are allowed - the Court was unanimous that the right is individual, but 5-4 on whether the D.C. law infringed...

[premium]

73. Thank you.

So chances are that even if the conservative wing were replaced with liberals, Heller would probably still stand and the individual right would remain intact?

[derby378]

89. HELLER is here to stay, and the gun-grabbers better get used to it

And guess what? Heller is only the beginning. Just take a look at McDonald v. City of Chicago.

We have room in this country for a workable, comprehensive background check system AND laws protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

[petronius]

90. With the caveat that I am neither an attorney nor a Constitutional scholar, I don't

think it's quite that simple. Heller wasn't really about 'individual' versus 'collective' rights, although all of the opinions mentioned it. That aspect was unanimous, so I would think that even if all nine of them were replaced, the 2A would continue to be recognized as an individual right.

But as I understand it, what was so important about Heller is that it also found that 2A protects a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and non-militia use. Only five of the Justices saw it that way; the dissenters argued that only arms connected with militia service are protected and the Constitution is silent when it comes to restrictions connected to purely civilian use.

I know that the Court gives a great deal of deference to past decisions, and doesn't like to overturn itself, which suggests that Heller is safe to some degree. Stevens makes repeated mention of this principle in his dissent. But Stevens seems to be framing it as though it's Heller itself that is a revisiting and overturning of past precedent; the tone of his dissent makes me think he'd like another whack at the issue, with maybe another Justice in his corner. So my (semi-educated and amateur) sense is that the 'individual right' component is highly likely to remain intact, but the expansiveness of Heller could be reigned in a bit if the composition of the Court changes...

[apocalypsehow]

97. Nope. It was made expressly clear by the progressive justices that they would overturn Heller if

they had one more vote, and that they intended to proceed to do so WHEN that day came. It's right there in their dissents. One more progressive justice on the court, and Heller is HISTORY. Just like Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson, two other horrible Supreme Court decisions later overturned by a civilized and liberal court.

[NoGOPZone]

105. Best method of answering your question

is to read the first few pages of Stevens dissent

Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) , provide a clear answer to that question.

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia

***********************

The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.





http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

[apocalypsehow]

115. You are in error. Here's the controlling text of the dissent:

" The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

The distorted jibber-jabber below about how even the liberal justices endorsed an "individual" right is mere parsing and semantic hair-splitting: the dissenters were very clear that it is only "individual" to the extent that a person upon whom the right is conferred is authorized by a legislature - to serve in, say, a "militia," i.e., a National Guard.

So, yes, when called to active duty a Guardsman has the "right" to "keep and bear" his or her firearms in defense of the state, pursuant to the orders of his or her commanding officers. That's it.

Glad to clear that up for you.

[apocalypsehow]

12. Five progressive/liberal justices = buh-bye, *Heller* mis-ruling. Better get used to it. n/t.

[hack89]

14. Time will tell. nt

[apocalypsehow]

19. Yep - and as the country is turning "Blue" quite steadily, time is on the side of genuine

progressives and liberals, not the NRA's side.

[hack89]

21. Since the President and the party platform say the 2A supports an individual right

I have no doubt I am on the right side.

[apocalypsehow]

26. Five progressive/liberal justices = buh-bye, *Heller* mis-ruling. Better get used to it. n/t.

[hack89]

29. Keep believing that.

you need something to keep you going considering how things are going for the gun control movement at the moment.

[apocalypsehow]

30. It's not a matter of "belief," it's a matter of FACTS. So, yeah: that day is coming. Heller will be

overturned. Bank it.

[hack89]

36. Predicting the future is never FACTS. It is an opinion.

how about we bookmark this thread and check back in about 30 years from now?

[apocalypsehow]

37. You go right ahead and "bookmark" it. Five progressive justices = *Heller* overturned.

It is that simple.

[pintobean]

41. Yes, it's turning blue

and green

[premium]

49. Good one.

I see what you did there.

[baldguy]

55. See what 30 yrs of corporate-funded RW propaganda pushing for fascism can do?

[former9thward]

11. National guards were created in the late 1800s.

Almost a century after the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution. They mainly were created to deal with labor insurrection which was taking place then. The writer of the 2nd amendment, James Madison, explained his reasons for the amendment. They had nothing to do with what you have written.

[apocalypsehow]

13. Ah, semantics games. Typical. National Guard 2013 = "Militia" 1792. But nice try. n/t.

[former9thward]

64. The 1792 Militia and the 2013 not even remotely the same.

The 1792 militia was the whole population. The National Guard is a tiny group of people.

From the author of the second amendment:

"The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46)

"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." (The Federalist, No. 46)


Nice try yourself.

[jmg257]

80. Yes, but we, the people have decided they prefer a select militia, AKA the National Guard.

And enacted laws recreating the militias into that federal entity. {eta: More in tune with what Hamilton had to say in Federalist #29.}

Obviously the people hold little with Madison et. al. and their original intentions that 'all' the people serve, they all need to be armed, they supply their own militia arms, they are the best pretext for avoiding large standing armies, etc. etc.

Probably why Madsion also wrote {about the Bill of Rights}, that the restrictions, no matter how strongly worded, will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public.

[former9thward]

123. I am glad you speak for "we, the people"

You know what "the people" want and think. I am not that arrogant.

[jmg257]

124. I don't claim to speak for the people, I wasn't even alive when those laws were written.

But I am smart enough to know what it means to be part of a republic, a democratic society.

Obviously enough of We, the people agree(d) with how things were changed, otherwise the Guard would never become the revamped militia, the Dick Act militia laws would not have remained for so long, the standing armies wouldn't be so huge, &c.


If you don't like what we, the people decide(d), then you simply have to do what you need to get things changed. Might want to take it up with your representatives.

[apocalypsehow]

102. Nope. The 2nd amendment was a collective right given to the states AFTER the Constitution was

adopted, in the Bill of Rights. Quoting from the Federalist - which you are apparently unaware was written in support of ratifying the Constitution, not the 2nd amendment - is irrelevant diversion and obfuscation.

The 2nd amendment applies only to the collective right of the states to organize "militias," i.e., in our modern parlance National Guards. That's it. Period.

Class dismissed.

[former9thward]

107. You love making stuff up.

I am quite aware when the Federalist papers were written. I just had to take you to school since you posted the founders agreed with you. The author of the 2nd amendment did not. I notice you quote no authority about your "collective" right fantasy.

You do know, don't you, that all nine justices in Heller said the 2nd amendment was an individual right. Not one of them agrees with you.

[apocalypsehow]

111. Nope, wrong on all counts. But now that you have been schooled on when the Federalist papers were

written, I expect to never see you again quoting it out of context on DU to support NRA talking points. If you do, it will be necessary to educate you again on the matter. As facts don't matter to our "pro gun progressives,"* such ongoing education will be necessary, I reckon.

Further, the 2nd amendment was not written with individuals in mind, but states. The whole point of the amendment was provide a framework for collective security of STATES in an era when there was no telecommunications or even telegraphs, and it could take days if not weeks to notify the Federal government of a hostile invasion by a foreign power and other armed incursions. It also helped assuage other state concerns, which you would know if you had ever studied the matter in any detail. I urge you to do so, then get back with us.


*( )

[former9thward]

122. Take it up with James Madison not me.

I didn't write the 2nd he did. He does not share your opinions.

[apocalypsehow]

114. Speaking of "making stuff up," here's the *ACTUAL* dissent in Heller by the progressive justices:

"The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

You really should school yourself before you post.

[former9thward]

121. Again I have to school you.

Not one of the justices agrees with your odd legal theories.

Justice Stevens in his dissent said, “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.”

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an additional dissent, which was joined by the same four justices who participated in the Stevens dissent. Justice Breyer wrote, “I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an ‘individual’ right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.”

[jmg257]

127. Have to disagree here. The states already had the power, the duty to maintain militias.

The state militias already existed, they were mandated under the Articles of Confederation.
It IS THESE entities - the Militias of the several States that were given very specific very important duties in the Constitution.

How they were to be regulated, armed & used in federal service was changed.
Of course they had to be effective to secure our liberties.


The 2nd definitely secures the right of the people the bear arms. The question is whether that right is only related to serving in the state militias.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

9. Whatever they and you have done does not trump the natural right to self-defense.

Even before this country was formed, John Locke was a liberal whose writings influenced the thinking of rational people. As noted by Wikipedia, he is widely known as the Father of Classical Liberalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

In his Second Essay on Civil Government, he explained that the right of self-defense is the first law of nature.
http://www.mcrkba.org/w0.html

In the Heller decision, the Supreme Court recognized the right of self-defense without reasoning that the right of self-defense is dependent upon the Second Amendment.

No one other than a foolish person would claim that the right to self-defense is dependent upon the Second Amendment or whether a person is part of a "well regulated militia."

If you would prefer that law-abiding citizens be disarmed in their homes while people that those in your photo exist, here's some news for you:

It's not going to happen.

[Throd]

16. No they don't, but I'm still keeping my firearms.

[hack89]

23. The President and our party platform says the 2A supports an individual right

considering the President taught constitutional law, I consider him a informed interpreter of the Second Amendment.

[el_bryanto]

27. Nope.

I'm guessing though, if I put up pictures of thousands who use guns safely and responsibly, that you wouldn't be moved, would you?

Bryant

[GeorgeGist]

32. The 2nd amendment is bullshit.

End of Story.

[apocalypsehow]

34. It's been twisted by five right-wing, GOP-appointed justices to mean something it doesn't;

the writers of the 2nd amend meant it to apply to states in order to organize National Guards.

Once we get five progressives on the court, it will be properly reinterpreted as the collective right applying only to the states that it is.

[davidn3600]

42. Majority of Americans believe its an invidual right...so does the president and the Democratic party

And then EVEN IF IT IS your way....it would then be reserved right of the state. The state would make the determination of whether they want their people armed. The federal government would have no mechanism of enforcement.

Seriously, you really think that Madison, Adams, Mason, and Washington would have no problem with the FEDERAL government confiscating people's firearms? Give me a fucking break. You are insulting my intelligence. I know damn well what those men believed in. And they certainly would not share your view of government power. No way!

[apocalypsehow]

46. Five progressive/liberal justices = buh-bye, *Heller* mis-ruling. Better get used to it. n/t.

[davidn3600]

48. Guns are going nowhere...get used to it.

You are living a fantasy if you think the government in this country will ever confiscate guns.

Not happening.

[apocalypsehow]

52. As no one has said anything about "confiscating guns" save you, your reply is irrelevant. n/t.

[davidn3600]

54. Bans, confiscation...whatever. Guns are going nowhere.

300+ million in this country. More than 40% of households have a gun. Most Americans are against gun bans. 1/4th of the Democratic party owns a firearm.

Guns are here to stay no matter what the Supreme Court says...no matter what the government does.

[apocalypsehow]

94. As no one has said anything about "confiscating guns" save you, your reply is *again* irrelevant. nt

[sandmann]

59. Then what does it matter if Heller is overturned or not?

[apocalypsehow]

95. Oh, it's going to be overturned alrighty - soon as we get a fifth progressive justice. n/t.

[sandmann]

119. I'm just trying to follow the logic

According to you, if Heller is overturned, then the 2nd Amendment no longer means an individual right and will be reinterpreted as some kind of National Guard thing.
According to you, nobody is talking about confiscation.

How do you get semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of individuals and only into the hands the military and police, without confiscating those weapons from individuals?
If you have no desire or plan to do that, then what good is there in overturning Heller?

[HangOnKids]

58. You knew these men personally?

Because you know DAMN WELL what they believed in. I won't comment on the insulting of intelligence line, but please give us your secret to aging so well.

[davidn3600]

66. Read their writings...it's right there!

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
-Richard Henry Lee

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
-Samuel Adams

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
-George Washington

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
-Richard Henry Lee

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-Patrick Henry

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
-Thomas Jefferson

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-Alexander Hamilton

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
-Edmund Burke

Yet you are going to tell me these men would have no problem with gun bans and confiscation? Are you freakin kidding me? If you want to favor that...fine. You have that right to believe and support in whatever policy you want. But don't try to act like the intention of the founding fathers was to allow the federal government to have the kind of power you want it to have. They didn't.

[HangOnKids]

70. Everyone Has An Opinion

This is your interpretation of what they wrote, not fact. You are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. The earth is round is a fact, water is wet is a fact, your screaming hysteria is NOT A FACT! Thanks for chiming in.

[jmg257]

65. Constitutionally, the states have no more power to disarm the people then the feds do.

Well regulated state militias were necessary.

They have VERY important, VERY vital, very specific roles to fill in securing all our liberties, when in federal service.
The states can not deny the national govt the use of the first line of defense (for the Union/for other states needing protection)...militias are required for keeping the guarantees made in the constitution.


Of course the primary purpose for the 2nd is obsolete, since the people decided a long time ago the well-regulated militias of the several states are not necessary, are not the best way to secure freedom, and aren't even needed for removing the pretexts of large standing armies.

[Lizzie Poppet]

84. ...and anyone with an adequate understanding of the English language.

Sadly, not all here have attained that standard.

The language of the amendment, while clumsy in places, unambiguously ascribes the RKBA to "the people." Not to the militia (which it invokes as a justification for protecting that right), but to the people.

[slackmaster]

61. Maybe, but until it's repealed it is the law of the land.

[One_Life_To_Give]

56. As opposed to these

members of the Lexington Minutemen? Aside from a strange glint in the eye and unusual clothing they don't look significantly different from the rest of the Lexington Militia.

[slackmaster]

60. I see two probable schizophrenics and one possible personality disorder.

[lynne]

63. They look like three reason we should have more mental institutions -

- and be able to commit the knowingly insane before they hurt themselves and others.

[Zoeisright]

68. Exactly.

[Eleanors38]

71. OP should consider that constant posting of psycho pictures may encourage others. nt

[HangOnKids]

81. Poor sentence structure El

Encourage others how, or to do what? This is a discussion board and words do matter, it isn't all about the bang bang bang here El.

[Eleanors38]

82. A mountain of irony, and you can't find a magnet? pop-fizz...

[HangOnKids]

83. Gibberish

It has a way of finding you El.

[Eleanors38]

85. You know what to do. nt

[HangOnKids]

86. Sorry No

Like a train wreck.......

[apocalypsehow]

93. Yep - our "pro gun progressives"* can't come out and OPENLY state their true beliefs on DU

without getting banned, so they either (a) have to dress the NRA cause up as somehow being "liberal" or "Democratic," or (b) obfuscate and dodge. That latter often leads them into spewing gibberish, as you pointed out here.

[krispos42]

87. There are three entities in the 2nd Amendment...

...the state, the militia, and the people.


Does it look like militia service or membership is required for gun ownership?

[aikoaiko]

106. No, did any one say that they did?

[Tender to the Bone]

131. Nope. They aren't militia at ALL.

All three should have never been allowed to own a gun. Period.