Oh those funny gun lovers . . .

[VinBucFan]

For those who say you need your arsenal to protect you against the US Government, the Supreme Court said "bullspit" noting that the types of weapons allowed by the 2nd Amendment would NEVER be successful in modern times against the government:

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right"

Read the last sentence. Even acknowledging that, the Court said that does mean the 2nd should be expanded to include better weapons.

(somebody on here typed with a straight face that Heller was pro-gun -lol)

[spartan]

The opinion spends about 20 pages demonstrating that the 2nd Amendment is NOT JUST about military service. The "dangerous and unusual weapons" is the only thing that could be construed as supportive of what you are arguing.  The opinion accedes that there are limitations, but Scalia then follows it up with this:

"It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

This in my opinion totally refutes your position. I read most of this but have to admit not every page and paragraph, so if there is something important that I missed feel free to let me know.

[olafberserker]

You forgot to hilght this bit:

 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.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis added).

So in essence he seems to be saying both military and non military constitute "arms."

of course he did .....

[Escobar06]

I imagine the process of disarming Americans would go exactly like this, Vin. Have the courts split some hairs, put on a dog and pony show in an attempt to "prove" to the public that they really are taking this matter oh so seriously, and then just like that it's back to slingshots and sharpened sticks...just as intended.

The founding fathers weren't dumb men. They didn't create the second amendment as a short term solution for citizens to protect themselves, they no doubt had an eye towards the future and that's why the generalized term "arms" was used instead of a list of the types of weapons present at the time. Because of this I believe it's extremely obvious the goal of the second amendment was to ensure the citizens of this country were at any point in the future as equally equipped as the military of their era. Obviously not tanks and stealth bombers, but concerning guns, I absolutely believe that. Do you really believe they thought single shot guns were the peak of innovation with nowhere to go but down? Obviously not. If the entire point of the second amendment was to allow the citizens to protect themselves from their own government or an invading foreign government (which it was), then it only makes sense that the intention was to allow us to have the same weapons. I don't see how anyone can see it any other way.

And yet still none of this matters because legal or illegal guns aren't going anywhere.

[VinBucFan]

The opinion spends about 20 pages demonstrating that the 2nd Amendment is NOT JUST about military service. The "dangerous and unusual weapons" is the only thing that could be construed as supportive of what you are arguing.  The opinion accedes that there are limitations, but Scalia then follows it up with this:

"It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

This in my opinion totally refutes your position. I read most of this but have to admit not every page and paragraph, so if there is something important that I missed feel free to let me know.

I am not sure I follow you or your reading.  How does the quoted text refute my opinion? 

What the Court is doing in that text is responding to an argument made by one of the pro-gun briefs brief.  One of those groups argued that the 2nd should be read broadly (i.e., NOT as the Court ruled, which was that the 2nd only applied to guns in ordinary use, non-military). One of those groups argued that a militia could not be effective today without more advanced weapons. (That same argument was made on this board -- by Escobar I think.)  In accordance with "my position" not refuting it, the Court said (paraphrasing) "no, no, no . .  just because ordinary, legal,  non-military weapons that citizens can have today would not be effective against 'modern-day bombers and tanks does not mean we are changing our opinion." 

Spartan, that is what the sentence in bold states.  You get that right?  That is not refuting "my position," it is AGREEING with "my position" (because its not "my position" per se,  I was simply telling you what the Supreme Court said)


EDIT:  Spartan, look right above this post. Escobar is making the argument again, the argument that I just said the Supreme Court rejected


EDIT #2 -- Spartan, the Miller decision was the prior decison that discussed the TYPES o weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment so the Heller Court has to address Miller.  This is what it said about Miller:

"We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.

Translated: there is no 2nd Amendment right that protects weapons "not typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes."  The VERY REASON the Heller Court struck down the DC ban that was at issue was because it was a ban of HANDGUNS -- which are "typically possessed by law abiding citizens" ---  IN THE HOME -- which is a "lawful purpose"  Do you see that now?  If not, think of  it this way, The Heller Court would have UPHELD the DC ban if it was for MACHINE GUNS  because MACHINE GUNS are not "typically possessed by law abiding citizens"

[VinBucFan]

I imagine the process of disarming Americans would go exactly like this, Vin. Have the courts split some hairs, put on a dog and pony show in an attempt to "prove" to the public that they really are taking this matter oh so seriously, and then just like that it's back to slingshots and sharpened sticks...just as intended.

The founding fathers weren't dumb men. They didn't create the second amendment as a short term solution for citizens to protect themselves, they no doubt had an eye towards the future and that's why the generalized term "arms" was used instead of a list of the types of weapons present at the time. Because of this I believe it's extremely obvious the goal of the second amendment was to ensure the citizens of this country were at any point in the future as equally equipped as the military of their era. Obviously not tanks and stealth bombers, but concerning guns, I absolutely believe that. Do you really believe they thought single shot guns were the peak of innovation with nowhere to go but down? Obviously not. If the entire point of the second amendment was to allow the citizens to protect themselves from their own government or an invading foreign government (which it was), then it only makes sense that the intention was to allow us to have the same weapons. I don't see how anyone can see it any other way.

And yet still none of this matters because legal or illegal guns aren't going anywhere.

First, there would be no "disarming" or at least its hard to imagine how that would work. More likely laws would impact future sales not existing gun stores

Second, as to your comment in bold, I understand you eel that way but the Supreme Court DID see it exactly the other way.  See my response to Spartan's last comment

[VinBucFan]

The court ruled in favor of the second amendment. Declaring otherwise doesn't actually make it so. It is rather humorous, though.

Illum, do you think the Court was possibly going to rule "not in favor" of the 2nd Amendment? Maybe you're Buggsy's ghost writer?

Who knows?

The answer is "no" and Illum knew it as soon as I commented on his ridiculous post, that is why he never responded.  You don't need to take me at my word, here's the Supreme Court in Heller answering my question to Illum with a resounding NO:

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Comments like the one from Illum and the insanity posted here by Buggsy is the product of their not understanding  what they are talking about.  The Supreme Court did not rule in favor of or against the 2nd Amendment.  The 2nd Amendment says what it says. The Supreme Court role is to interpret it, not "in favor" or "against." The 2nd Amendment provides a right to bear arms. Undeniable, but if you read Heller you should be able to see that they interpreted that right almost as narrowly as they could have -- and it was a CONSERVATIVE court

[Escobar06]

I couldn't care less what the SC believes to be honest. Common sense prevails in this matter, and common sense tells me that the founders wouldn't include an amendment that essentially expired once weapons become more advanced. Our SC, and government as a whole has an agenda....the only agenda I can spot from our founders was keeping this country safe and allowing the citizens to protect themselves in the event they needed to.

By "disarming" I meant the gradual process of doing away with guns altogether. That's where it's going to lead and I hope (most around here do) people realize it. This won't end with assault style weapons and clip sizes. I don't know if it will happen in 5 years or 50, but it's inevitable that gun ownership will eventually be a thing of the past.

I read an article not too long ago containing some quotes from an anti-gun loon. She was blabbing about how her boyfriend dragged her to a gun show and that after speaking with a vendor she learned that (in his estimation) roughly 40 percent of gun transactions are done "under the table" with no registration or background check to speak of. She was pretty angry over this, yet what she really needs to be angry about is the fact that her dumbass is complaining about 40 percent of gun transactions going down this way, while at the same time being fully supportive of that number jumping to 100 percent. People in America no longer care if something is good for the country, they just want THEIR agenda fulfilled.

[spartan]

The opinion spends about 20 pages demonstrating that the 2nd Amendment is NOT JUST about military service. The "dangerous and unusual weapons" is the only thing that could be construed as supportive of what you are arguing.  The opinion accedes that there are limitations, but Scalia then follows it up with this:

"It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

This in my opinion totally refutes your position. I read most of this but have to admit not every page and paragraph, so if there is something important that I missed feel free to let me know.

I am not sure I follow you or your reading.  How does the quoted text refute my opinion? 

What the Court is doing in that text is responding to an argument made by one of the pro-gun briefs brief.  One of those groups argued that the 2nd should be read broadly (i.e., NOT as the Court ruled, which was that the 2nd only applied to guns in ordinary use, non-military). One of those groups argued that a militia could not be effective today without more advanced weapons. (That same argument was made on this board -- by Escobar I think.)  In accordance with "my position" not refuting it, the Court said (paraphrasing) "no, no, no . .  just because ordinary, legal,  non-military weapons that citizens can have today would not be effective against 'modern-day bombers and tanks does not mean we are changing our opinion." 

Spartan, that is what the sentence in bold states.  You get that right?  That is not refuting "my position," it is AGREEING with "my position" (because its not "my position" per se,  I was simply telling you what the Supreme Court said)


EDIT:  Spartan, look right above this post. Escobar is making the argument again, the argument that I just said the Supreme Court rejected


EDIT #2 -- Spartan, the Miller decision was the prior decison that discussed the TYPES o weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment so the Heller Court has to address Miller.  This is what it said about Miller:

"We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.

Translated: there is no 2nd Amendment right that protects weapons "not typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes."  The VERY REASON the Heller Court struck down the DC ban that was at issue was because it was a ban of HANDGUNS -- which are "typically possessed by law abiding citizens" ---  IN THE HOME -- which is a "lawful purpose"  Do you see that now?  If not, think of  it this way, The Heller Court would have UPHELD the DC ban if it was for MACHINE GUNS  because MACHINE GUNS are not "typically possessed by law abiding citizens"

You made the assertion that Scalia argued the 2nd Amendment pertained only to non military weapons. Scalia spent a great deal of time arguing that Stevens was wrong in that it referred ONLY to military service. His argument was yes, it referred to militia service in the military sense, but also to non military applications. He also stated that regardless of the effectiveness of a militia against a modern armed force, that does not take away the right as it was originally intended.   

[VinBucFan]

You made the assertion that Scalia argued the 2nd Amendment pertained only to non military weapons. Scalia spent a great deal of time arguing that Stevens was wrong in that it referred ONLY to military service. His argument was yes, it referred to militia service in the military sense, but also to non military applications. He also stated that regardless of the effectiveness of a militia against a modern armed force, that does not take away the right as it was originally intended.   

1. I made the assertion that the Scalia-authored opinion relied on a definition of "arms" that drew a distinction between military and non-military weapon. That is why, Spartan, the Court went on the say, as I just posted above, that the 2nd Am. only protected weapons ordinarily possessed  by citizens for lawful purposes. It protects handguns, but not machine guns.

2. Your last sentence is just off, but very close.  You say this: "He also stated that regardless of the effectiveness of a militia against a modern armed force, that does not take away the right as it was originally intended"  What the Court actually said was (paraphrasing) "regardless of the effectiveness of a militia against a modern armed force, that does not take away the right as  WE HAVE INTERPRETED IT. In other words, just because modern citizens need more powerful weapons in a hypothetical militia to combat modern weapons (aka the Escobar argument) DOES NOT change our ruling that the rights afforded by the 2nd Am only apply to weapons in ordinarily possessed for lawful purposes (i.e handguns used for home protection, as in the DC case at issue)

[VinBucFan]

I couldn't care less what the SC believes to be honest.

I know that and completely respect that.  I was only pointing out what the SC said because that points to what future gun laws will look like. There are many here saying they disagree -- and that is their right -- but it doesn't change what they said and what they said when the court was a pretty conservative court, its only going to move left from here (unfortunately)

[Chief Joseph]

" The answer is "no" and Illum knew it as soon as I commented on his ridiculous post, that is why he never responded."

Alright, f*ckwit, I'll answer you idiotic questions.

" Illum, do you think the Court was possibly going to rule "not in favor" of the 2nd Amendment?"

No. They ruled the ban unconstitutional and overturned it. That's what the case was all about. The only one that hasn't figured this out yet is you.

"Maybe you're Buggsy's ghost writer?"

No, you inbred, buck toothed, mullet wearin' halfwit. Scratch that, you're clearly not a halfwit, you're a quarterwit  at best. These were the burning questions you had to have answers to? And you still wonder why no one takes you seriously?

[Escobar06]

You made the assertion that Scalia argued the 2nd Amendment pertained only to non military weapons. Scalia spent a great deal of time arguing that Stevens was wrong in that it referred ONLY to military service. His argument was yes, it referred to militia service in the military sense, but also to non military applications. He also stated that regardless of the effectiveness of a militia against a modern armed force, that does not take away the right as it was originally intended.   

1. I made the assertion that the Scalia-authored opinion relied on a definition of "arms" that drew a distinction between military and non-military weapon. That is why, Spartan, the Court went on the say, as I just posted above, that the 2nd Am. only protected weapons ordinarily possessed  by citizens for lawful purposes. It protects handguns, but not machine guns.

2. Your last sentence is just off, but very close.  You say this: "He also stated that regardless of the effectiveness of a militia against a modern armed force, that does not take away the right as it was originally intended"  What the Court actually said was (paraphrasing) "regardless of the effectiveness of a militia against a modern armed force, that does not take away the right as  WE HAVE INTERPRETED IT. In other words, just because modern citizens need more powerful weapons in a hypothetical militia to combat modern weapons (aka the Escobar argument) DOES NOT change our ruling that the rights afforded by the 2nd Am only apply to weapons in ordinarily possessed for lawful purposes (i.e handguns used for home protection, as in the DC case at issue)

You might want to change that to "the founding fathers argument".

It's very troubling that you so eagerly accept an obviously flawed interpretation of what was intended.

[VinBucFan]

You made the assertion that Scalia argued the 2nd Amendment pertained only to non military weapons. Scalia spent a great deal of time arguing that Stevens was wrong in that it referred ONLY to military service. His argument was yes, it referred to militia service in the military sense, but also to non military applications. He also stated that regardless of the effectiveness of a militia against a modern armed force, that does not take away the right as it was originally intended.   

1. I made the assertion that the Scalia-authored opinion relied on a definition of "arms" that drew a distinction between military and non-military weapon. That is why, Spartan, the Court went on the say, as I just posted above, that the 2nd Am. only protected weapons ordinarily possessed  by citizens for lawful purposes. It protects handguns, but not machine guns.

2. Your last sentence is just off, but very close.  You say this: "He also stated that regardless of the effectiveness of a militia against a modern armed force, that does not take away the right as it was originally intended"  What the Court actually said was (paraphrasing) "regardless of the effectiveness of a militia against a modern armed force, that does not take away the right as  WE HAVE INTERPRETED IT. In other words, just because modern citizens need more powerful weapons in a hypothetical militia to combat modern weapons (aka the Escobar argument) DOES NOT change our ruling that the rights afforded by the 2nd Am only apply to weapons in ordinarily possessed for lawful purposes (i.e handguns used for home protection, as in the DC case at issue)

You might want to change that to "the founding fathers argument".

It's very troubling that you so eagerly accept an obviously flawed interpretation of what was intended.

I get your point, funny though to see you describe it as "obviously flawed" when you consider that the "obviously flawed" opinion came from a very sharply divided CONSERVATIVE court. 

By the way, did you know that the NRA tried to scuttle the case so that it would not reach the Supreme Court?  They tried very hard.  They saw what was coming and worse.  (yet Buggsy will tell you Heller was a very pro-gun decision)

[VinBucFan]

" The answer is "no" and Illum knew it as soon as I commented on his ridiculous post, that is why he never responded."

Alright, f*ckwit, I'll answer you idiotic questions.

" Illum, do you think the Court was possibly going to rule "not in favor" of the 2nd Amendment?"

No. They ruled the ban unconstitutional and overturned it. That's what the case was all about. The only one that hasn't figured this out yet is you.

"Maybe you're Buggsy's ghost writer?"

No, you inbred, buck toothed, mullet wearin' halfwit. Scratch that, you're clearly not a halfwit, you're a quarterwit  at best. These were the burning questions you had to have answers to? And you still wonder why no one takes you seriously?

I know, I know . .  you want to shoot me in the face  . .  you're just not brave enough to put your name on that threat.  Big Internet muscles . . . tiny in real life.

 From this day forward, your Cove Pledge Name shall be  . . .  ALF . . . because you sure are an Angry Little **CENSORED**er  Well, maybe ILF . .  yeah ILF is better . . .  Impotent Little **CENSORED**er