Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)

"Scout" <4guns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:yLadnUtIj7t_gdXZ4p2dnA@xxxxxxxxxxxx:


"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145554450.753484.136030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
RD (The Sandman) (spamlock) wrote:
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1145471456.816737.302560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

RD (The Sandman) (spamlock) wrote:
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1145448267.206764.228540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


Oh, we agree......it is rather self devident that the words
"..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed." is the right that is being protected. There is
nothing spelled out about protecting the militia, but that is
part of it. The only real reason that the second is even
required is that some thought that state sovereignty might be
compromised by a failure of the feds to arm the militia as
noted in Article I, section 8, clause 16.

Did I just hear you appoint yourself spokesperson for folks who
want to carry firearms?

Nope. You heard me express my opinon. That is all I can do and
all you can do.

Because I'm in that group, and I don't agree that
the 2nd Amendment means you can own and carry any weapon you
want.

Nor did I say that either. You jump to a lot of conclusions just
like you claim others do.

I
also don't believe that _on its face_ the 2nd amendment is
clearly recognizing and protecting an individual right.

I do. Without the individuals in a group having the right, the
group collectively doesn't either.

(Although I do
believe that can be wrung out of the 2nd by a U.S. Supreme
Court justice who likes penumbra.) And THERE ISN'T AGREEMENT
generally-- or we wouldn't have to have this discussion.

It is true that there isn't agreement.

The funny thing is that you and I are not far from agreement
and we appear to still have to have this discussion.


SNIP......

There's some indication of the problem-- and why I think the
RKBA for self-defense will ultimately have to be considered
as "enshrined" in the 2nd amendment even where on tis face
it might not be specific about it.

Why even bother with it? Self defense is instinctive and
firearms are the most effective tool to accomplish the goal.
Using self defense as a means to justify firearms is a weak
stance when discussing rights. The right of self defense is
not tied to a specific methodology, it is whatever works.

I bother discsussing the 2nd not because I want to-- if you
look back in this thread it says I didn't want to address the
issue at all because I think gun rights get hung up on the 2nd
when they aren't even derived from it.

Here we agee. They are protected by it, though.

However, since there are so many people in the
pro-gun rights community who hang their hats on the flimsy
branch of the second amendment, I have little choice but to
talk about it-- and reconcile with them my own view that you
can wring an individual right out of the assumptions in the
2nd-- even where on its face it isn't clear.

It is rather quite simple. How can a populace have the right to
keep and bear arms if the individuals within that populace do
not? Even the USSC agrees in Miller where they wrote:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from
the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of
Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators.
These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And
further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the
kind in common use at the time."

Kinda hard to supply your own arms if you can't have them.

I think you might be reading a little too much into Miller.

I don't since the cite came directly from the case and it is in
English.

I agree that the 2nd amendment protects the individual RKBA for
defense of the state.

Among other reasons.
There's NO wording in the 2nd that limits the RKBA to just defense of the
state.

I don't think that could be any more clear and
unambiguous. But the individual RKBA enumerated there does not
clearly extend to a right to bear arms for other reasons-- such as
self-defense.

So what?
Who in their right mind would believe that the creators of the Constitution
would include EVERY reason for every situation? The only reason Homie keeps
claiming this is to justify his anti-gun restrictions. The creators
understood the right to self-defense was natural and inherent.
Why Homie can't understand that is beyond me.

If I can not defend myself how can I possibly defend another much less
a state?

In Homie's mindset,because the 2nd somehow limits the RKBA only to defense
of the state.

Further what part of "shall not be infringed" means the right can be
infringed?


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... "..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be ... the 2nd Amendment means you can own and carry any weapon you ... RKBA for self-defense will ultimately have to be considered ... Using self defense as a means to justify firearms is a weak ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: If Obama Supports The Second Amendment....
    ... the 2nd Amendment MUST provide the same thing? ... citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms, ... lawful defense of himself or the state." ... it's because the purpose of those provisions is clearly ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... "..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be ... the 2nd Amendment means you can own and carry any weapon you ... Using self defense as a means to justify firearms is a weak ... stance when discussing rights. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... "..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be ... the 2nd Amendment means you can own and carry any weapon you ... Using self defense as a means to justify firearms is a weak ... stance when discussing rights. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... also don't believe that _on its face_ the 2nd amendment is ... clearly recognizing and protecting an individual right. ... Using self defense as a means to justify firearms is ... to keep and bear arms if the individuals within that populace ...
    (talk.politics.guns)