Supreme Court ruled today on the D.C. gun ban

[iloveshemales77]

Isn't it about time we got rid of the 2nd amendment. I mean this IS 2008, not 1776, if I'm not mistaken...

uh oh...I'm gonna be ducking all those NRA bullets coming my way any minute now...

Dude, are you high on crack or something?

Nope, totally sober and serious!

[trish]

If you want teachers to carry concealed firearms, then you never had the idiots I had for teachers.

Even though the right of the “people” (which needn’t, until today, be read as individuals) to bear arms is guaranteed by the second amendment, very little is said in today’s decision about regulation. The first amendment has always been read as giving individuals as well as the press the right to speech. Yet, being an in force constitutional amendment has not precluded speech from regulation. There are venues where you can’t say George Carlin’s seven words without paying an exorbitant fine. You can be sued for defamation. You can be fined for false advertising. It has yet to be worked out what sort of regulations are justified by this latest supreme court deconstruction of a constitutional amendment that had been well understood for seventy years.

[iloveshemales77]

Trust trish to supply the most thoughtful, informed and erudite comment on this matter.

[El Nino]

awww jeez...

[iloveshemales77]

No, I'm not sucking up to her. I just happen to think that trish, along with Peggy Gee, is one of the most intelligent and informed posters in this forum. Just my humble opinion which, according to the first amendment, I am entitled to utter.

[phosepete]

Militia - an group of people who arm themselves and conduct quasi-military training

Look how you again missed the "well-regulated" part.

"well regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means. In the context of the times that the constitution was written, the definition of "regulated" meant "well trained" or "well drilled".

Scalia explains clearly that the prefatory clause(aka "well regulated militia") is not a limitation, but rather an explanation of the second, operative clause (aka "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed")


Scalia's majority opinion:

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be re-
phrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”...... other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose...... Logic demands that there be a link between the stated
purpose and the command. The Second Amendment
would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be
infringed.”...... But apart from that
clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.

[Tomfurbs]

Yeah, but Antonin Scalia is a right-wing torture-crazy death-penalty-loving gay-bashing reactionary twat.

[trish]

"well regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means. In the context of the times that the constitution was written, the definition of "regulated" meant "well trained" or "well drilled".

“Arms” doesn’t mean what you think it means either. The founding fathers thought arms meant flintlocks and knives. The initial intention of the founding fathers is not at issue. Their intentions can go no further than their own understanding of what an arm is or what a militia is or what a drug gang is. Every court interprets the constitution in its own unique way. Even near contemporary understandings are sometimes deemed irrelevant. This was the case today when the current court effectively said, “let precedents be damned.” Today we find out that not only is it important what’s written in the constitution, but equally important is who gets to interpret what’s written. The NRA might rail against activist courts, but today they are not so secretly reveling in the activism of the current court.

[phosepete]

"well regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means. In the context of the times that the constitution was written, the definition of "regulated" meant "well trained" or "well drilled".

“Arms” doesn’t mean what you think it means either. The founding fathers thought arms meant flintlocks and knives. The initial intention of the founding fathers is not at issue. Their intentions can go no further than their own understanding of what an arm is or what a militia is or what a drug gang is. Every court interprets the constitution in its own unique way. Even near contemporary understandings are sometimes deemed irrelevant. This was the case today when the current court effectively said, “let precedents be damned.” Today we find out that not only is it important what’s written in the constitution, but equally important is who gets to interpret what’s written. The NRA might rail against activist courts, but today they are not so secretly reveling in the activism of the current court.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Read the majority opinion, it shoots down your entire argument. Arms means EXACTLY what I think it means.

You seriously need to read the Federalist papers, specifically #46, where the reason for, and purpose of, 2nd amendment was discussed in detail.

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we inter-
pret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no
different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons
of offence, or armour of defence.” .... Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary
defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his
defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast
at or strike another.”....Although one founding-era thesaurus
limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments
of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source
stated that all firearms constituted “arms.”.....Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivo-
us, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not in-
terpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
.... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search..... the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.

[Tomfurbs]

'The Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding. '


So, like, bazookas?