guns

[DirtDawg]

You're talking about the part that isn't clear. I was talking about the part that is clear, and that's who are 'the people'. You said it's not clear who has the right to own guns, when it clearly says the right of the people, so you seemed to be doubting who are the people. The reason the right of the people must not be infringed is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That's the muddy part, especially in today's age when militia groups give a new meaning to the word and are watched by the government like terrorist organizations.

There are two amendments which are worded in this particular style. The 2nd and the 4th. In both cases,
historically, they had served to set the boundaries of the restriction. If there were no boundaries, in the
case of the 2nd, you wouldn't have any gun control at all. For the 4th, what comprised 'unreasonable' would be left in doubt.

Up until the recent radical judicial activism on the right, expressed in Heller, this was understood - that the
founders were not iconoclasts, trying to completely overthrow the existing terms that a society would operate
under. Literalists are a different matter though.

All of them may try, but not attending every single word they all still struggle to find legitimacy in anything they write.
You brought up the Fourth Amendment which seems fairly clear at first, but again, up for grabs as to what intent might have been implied or left out.

Just for clarity, here it is:


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[DirtDawg]

All kinds of ways to screw that up.

The first thing is to define the exact terms of every single word, which has been attempted.

[DirtDawg]

This is actually becoming boring.  Like in eighth grade, OK Daddy can have a gun, no one is allowed onto our property, mommy can not vote, OH wait!
Now it is ninth grade.
 

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Yes, it is very clear once you have made up your mind about what it means.

I know what it means because I know what the supreme court says it means. I also know they could later say it means something else, and I'll still know it means what they say it means.

In other words it means whatever the Supreme Court wants it to mean.

Which is pretty much what deliberately ambiguous language is designed for.

[Jack]

This is actually becoming boring.  Like in eighth grade, OK Daddy can have a gun, no one is allowed onto our property, mommy can not vote, OH wait!
Now it is ninth grade.

Yes it is, but there's not much else at the moment. Good point on mommy voting. If one really wants to get into the intent of the time it was written, then we the people were probably just we the men of the united states. In terms of our reserve militia, it still means that.

[DirtDawg]

This is actually becoming boring.  Like in eighth grade, OK Daddy can have a gun, no one is allowed onto our property, mommy can not vote, OH wait!
Now it is ninth grade.

Yes it is, but there's not much else at the moment. Good point on mommy voting. If one really wants to get into the intent of the time it was written, then we the people were probably just we the men of the united states. In terms of our reserve militia, it still means that.

May be for most, but I know a "lady" five ten, one hundred seventy pounds of solid girl muscle, still after all these years since her service, that no one could take down who is a part of the local reserves.
Wife to one of my Neighborhood Watch buddies, who has also offered us a bit of training in security, but she is one bad ass.

Did two tours back ten years ago and came back home in one piece. Now it is all about her adopted kid. I am not jealous of my pal for having a bonafide, proven warrior woman in his home, but I wonder how he is worthy. He is just a regular guy. Not a subject I would ever approach.
There are some gals out there who still serve in the reserves and such. Do not discount them.

Not sure if that is what you meant, but the Reserves is as close as we get to a "Well Regulated Militia"  these days.
Oh, forgot to mention, they have guns and they both know how to use them.
Pretty sure I am the only one in the neighborhood who keeps a Class III license though.


The mommy point was a look toward the FACT that we still have to re-think everything. Fucking all of it!

[DirtDawg]

I say "We The People" were the most important words written in those times.

Figuring out how to include everyone in that preamble has been and always will be our biggest challenge.

[Calandale]

MOSW, that's a funny picture, but yes, that's probably exactly what they meant. At the time of the writing of the constitution there was no truly organized militia, no national guard. The US militia at the time was what's now considered an unorganized militia, but even still today the US reserve militia consists of every able bodied male 17-45 who is not already a member of the national guard or naval militia. The man in the photo appears to meet those requirements.

It's not. They meant a community, organized for its own defense. Something like the Branch Davidians
or the Militia Movement. They also meant ALL arms. So, localities made their own rules, for their own protection,
free from federal or state interference. Which allowed municipalities (like the city of Washington) to
make their own appropriate restrictions. It also allowed communities to buy a fucking cannon, if
that's what they needed to protect them from natives.

And this was all so bloody obvious at the time that no one thought to challenge it.

[Calandale]

Thinking the only real boundaries of restricting constitutional right are to hinder states from eliminating rights completely. It's hard to think of much that hasn't been determined by the courts to be conditional. Agree with the point of literalists. Probably correct in saying the writing is vague intentionally. Vague means adaptable, and that adaptability is why it still works.

Yes. We shouldn't be bending over to figure out what the founders meant. We should be looking at
what is best for society right now, within a reasonable interpretation.

But that's not an argument the gun lobby makes. Because, then things like studies on gun violence
enter into the picture, and not some overweening right, derived out of a fantasy of what this country
once was like.

[Jack]

This is actually becoming boring.  Like in eighth grade, OK Daddy can have a gun, no one is allowed onto our property, mommy can not vote, OH wait!
Now it is ninth grade.

Yes it is, but there's not much else at the moment. Good point on mommy voting. If one really wants to get into the intent of the time it was written, then we the people were probably just we the men of the united states. In terms of our reserve militia, it still means that.

May be for most, but I know a "lady" five ten, one hundred seventy pounds of solid girl muscle, still after all these years since her service, that no one could take down who is a part of the local reserves.
Wife to one of my Neighborhood Watch buddies, who has also offered us a bit of training in security, but she is one bad ass.

Did two tours back ten years ago and came back home in one piece. Now it is all about her adopted kid. I am not jealous of my pal for having a bonafide, proven warrior woman in his home, but I wonder how he is worthy. He is just a regular guy. Not a subject I would ever approach.
There are some gals out there who still serve in the reserves and such. Do not discount them.

Not sure if that is what you meant, but the Reserves is as close as we get to a "Well Regulated Militia"  these days.
Oh, forgot to mention, they have guns and they both know how to use them.
Pretty sure I am the only one in the neighborhood who keeps a Class III license though.


The mommy point was a look toward the FACT that we still have to re-think everything. Fucking all of it!

Wasn't trying to discount anyone. Had interpreted your statement about women voting to be a reaction to MOSW talking about what the people meant. Past tense. Of course that's what it meant. As far as the regulated militia goes, it means the same thing today it meant then, able bodied males of a certain age.

[Calandale]

In other words it means whatever the Supreme Court wants it to mean.

Which is pretty much what deliberately ambiguous language is designed for.

You have to remember, probably no one envisioned that the supreme court would evolve
to what it has become either.

Marshall took an EXTREME step of judicial activism in seizing upon the power to determine the
limits of what the federal government could do.

[Jack]

MOSW, that's a funny picture, but yes, that's probably exactly what they meant. At the time of the writing of the constitution there was no truly organized militia, no national guard. The US militia at the time was what's now considered an unorganized militia, but even still today the US reserve militia consists of every able bodied male 17-45 who is not already a member of the national guard or naval militia. The man in the photo appears to meet those requirements.

It's not. They meant a community, organized for its own defense. Something like the Branch Davidians
or the Militia Movement. They also meant ALL arms. So, localities made their own rules, for their own protection,
free from federal or state interference. Which allowed municipalities (like the city of Washington) to
make their own appropriate restrictions. It also allowed communities to buy a fucking cannon, if
that's what they needed to protect them from natives.

And this was all so bloody obvious at the time that no one thought to challenge it.

One can still own a cannon.

[Calandale]

The telling part of that first clause, to me, is that it is the very rationale for the amendment.

And, we abandoned having such. But, I wouldn't suggest that's reason enough to
invalidate the whole thing.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Yes. We shouldn't be bending over to figure out what the founders meant. We should be looking at
what is best for society right now, within a reasonable interpretation.

Uum yeah, you really don't want to go there.

That would be a 100% ban on all Blacks and Hispanics from owning guns.

It would potentially cut our gun homicide rate by 60%.   

[Calandale]

I thought the 'spics preferred knives