Re: Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:28:24 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uo8jk31eq0kulpp8icn5j7676sr9ss4evu@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:55:58 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:q5ohk35mqnr7eeqaj676qofcevl8pi1mu5@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:15:38 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:p2ogk3ttkto30kmgn52qdrbhp833lrfrs5@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 10:04:39 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"JC" <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5oX1j.91620$LL1.61019@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Rick Merrill" <rick0.merrill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MbSdnd2TqL8CoNranZ2dnUVZ_v3inZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This will be a 4:5 decision to decide if the "right"
is an individual citizen right or a state right. What
do You think?

I'll tell you what I DON'T think. I don't think the founding fathers
would
put into a bill of rights a right granted to the federal government
when
the bill of rights was meant to guarantee certain rights to the
individual
citizen. Do you?

Well, let's put it this way:

I think arguments that the 2nd applies to groups and not individual
citizens
are contorted, constrained, and all rather silly, when you really
parse
them
through.


I respectfully disagree.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed."

If the first clause weren't important, why on earth would it
be in there at all, why would it come first, and why would it
contain the otherwise meaningless adjectival structure
"well regulated"?

It explains the reasoning for the Amendment. I suspect the Framers knew
that
restrictions on firearms is the first place a coercive goverment wants
to
exert its control.

I'd say the amendment is badly written from our perspective,

Agreed.

but I think most people, when they consider the structure of
the states at the time of the American Revolution, would
agree that militias were far more important then than they are
today: more important than a national army.

Agreed again, but per the above, not germane to the interpretation.


I have to disagree. The first clause is first.

Then it's unique in the BOR in that it's not targed at individual rights.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27640

George Mason, called the father of the Bill of Rights, said, "What is the
militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most
effectual way to enslave them." James Madison, called the father of the
Constitution, said of tyrants, "[They were] afraid to trust the people
with
arms," and lauded "the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess
over the people of almost every other nation."
Thomas Paine said, "The peaceable part of mankind will be overrun by the
vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defense.
[Weakness]
allures the ruffian [but] arms like laws discourage and keep the invader
and
plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world. Horrid mischief would
ensue were [the good] deprived of the use of them. The weak will become a
prey to the strong."

Even some noted liberal professors admit the obvious. Harvard's Laurence
Tribe says, "The 14th Amendment, which makes parts of the Bill of Rights
applicable to the states, reflected a broad agreement that bearing arms
was
a 'privilege' of each citizen." Fellow Harvard liberal law professor Alan
Dershowitz agrees, and scolds fellow liberals for twisting the words of
the
Second Amendment in a way that could come back to haunt them. "Foolish
liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the
Constitution
by claiming that it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a
safety hazard," said Dershowitz, "don't see the danger of the big
picture."
He added, "They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same
means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."


These are reasonable arguments made for your view, but they
don't persuade the other side away from the counterarguments,

No question. Agreed.


nor will the other side persuade you. I can't get away myself from
that opening clause of the two clauses - if we're going to stick
with literalism. That's not to say that being slaves to the
constitution is anything but façade. It is the American tradition to
try to find some constitutional hook, no matter how far-fetched, to
hang everything on. Other countries don't do that.

It will be hard to persuade me that the Constitution doesn't mean anything.


Not in general, but the debate shows that the second
amendment is anything but clear for modern times.


For example, I find that's the most appealing thing about Ron Paul -- he's
not afraid to hold it up and say "This means something." (To me, meaning "We
can debate about what it means, but let's not forget it's the starting point
of the debate.")

The tradition
does have its virtues, so I'm not really criticising, but it has its
liabilities too, and no shortage of ridiculousness in trying to fit
21st century pegs into 18th century holes.

I see far more appropriateness than I do the reverse. The world changes,
humans don't. (Remembering here the writings, attributed to Socrates, about
the dearth of character he saw amongst the youth of the day.)

This particular issue of gun control immingled with militias is not
a straightforward example of the hallowed "English common law"
which does in general elsewhere serve as an "eternal" traditional
basis.

Agreed. However, I see a very important connection between the idea of
"inalienable human rights" (vs. "rights being a government grant") and
weapon ownership.


We've been through this. We don't agree. Half the US
agrees with you, half doesn't. In the 18th century there
was no confusion because the militias were the peacekeepers.
Now they aren't, and we're debating a distinction that didn't
exist at the time of the framers.




I should point out that I don't own a gun, never have, and see no reason to
ever (personally) own one.



I don't either, though I think about getting one from time to
time. I have a glass front door, so it would be easy for an
intruder to get in. I'm getting older, so it's getting more
questionable how well I could handle even an unarmed
intruder. There's a wire mesh behind the glass door, but
that wouldn't buy much time. I don't even like having
propane containers inside the house, so I'd probably not
feel comfortable with a loaded gun around.

I've only fired real guns one day in my life, up in Alaska.
(As opposed to BB guns and air guns.) My friend loaded
the guns for me. I have to admit I enjoyed shooting at
empty cartons. I wouldn't want to shoot at an animal,
though, even for food, certainly not for "sport". My friend
has killed moose, and the moosemeat is good. It doesn't
taste strange like venison and is a lot less fatty than beef.



.

Relevant Pages