Oh those funny gun lovers . . .

[dalbuc]

Well, here it is quoted from Heller:

"Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret 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.” 1

    The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.”

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.”

I am trying really hard to follow the "logic" you are trying to quote and I'm not sure if you misunderstand what you are reading or not since the three sentences all fail to support your contention.

You in particular fail to understand the sentence here" The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. " You are reading this as "The term was (ONLY) applied...." when it must be most properly read as "he term was (ALSO) applied...."

The usual argument vs the second amendment for a long, long time was that it ONLY protected military grade weapons and a militia so it didn't cover joe blow's shotgun or uncle bob's 30-06. The quote you mined is designed to specifically counter that argument. you are using it grossly out of context or else that paragraph you clipped was written by the schitzo.

[VinBucFan]

Well, here it is quoted from Heller:

"Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret 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.” 1

    The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.”

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.”

I am trying really hard to follow the "logic" you are trying to quote and I'm not sure if you misunderstand what you are reading or not since the three sentences all fail to support your contention.

You in particular fail to understand the sentence here" The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. " You are reading this as "The term was (ONLY) applied...." when it must be most properly read as "he term was (ALSO) applied...."

The usual argument vs the second amendment for a long, long time was that it ONLY protected military grade weapons and a militia so it didn't cover joe blow's shotgun or uncle bob's 30-06. The quote you mined is designed to specifically counter that argument. you are using it grossly out of context or else that paragraph you clipped was written by the schitzo.

That's not actually correct, either the reading or the analysis.  No disrespect intended. Let me explain:

 To start with, the quote is just one part of the long reasoning by the Court in support of its CONCLUSION that the 2nd Am. only protects guns regularly found and legally used (I am paraphrasing) by the citizenry.  I posted the link to the actual opinion and have quoted it heavily here in this thread. If there is one thing EVERYONE should be able to agree on its that the holding of Heller was that the 2nd only protects guns regularly found and legally used (I am paraphrasing) by the citizenry (The issue in Heller was the DC handgun ban, The Court struck the law down because handguns are regularly found and legally used in defense of homes so it was unconstitutional to ban them. That would not have been the result if the DC law banned machine guns)

Now, part of the Court's reasoning included an analysis -- which you are free to disagree with --- that the term "arms" as it was used at the time of the ratification of the 2nd amendment meant the ordinary, non-military arms that, for example, a farmer would have on his farm.  Scalia, the author of the majority's opinion, is an ORIGINALIST ( Here he is --  "Examining what the Founders meant when writing the Constitution is the best method for judging cases, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Friday during a lecture sponsored by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Freedom of Expression")

So Scalia did what he is want to do and he (and the majority) dissected the phrase "right to bear arms" by starting with "arms" and saying that "arms" applied then and through history to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity  I didn't say ONLY and, more importantly, the Court did not say ONLY because they didn't need to.  All the Court was trying to do (because Scalia is an ORIGINALIST) was show that there was an actual historical underpinning for the Court's 2008 interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The very paragraph I quoted acknowledges at there were other interpretations of the word, but the Court found the "arms" = "non-military" the most compelling definition.

Lastly, I think your last paragraph is a reference to the Miller decision, but  your description is off (or, to be fair,  it could just be  that my reading of your description is off).  It sounds like you have it backwards, but again it could be that I misunderstand what you're trying to say.

[Dolorous Jason]

Well you should know that I find both sides to be a joke, and the R's vs D's nonsense is little more than a distraction aimed at fools.

And I think everyone saw what was coming, and what's to come....including the founding fathers.

Vin answer me this, without referencing Heller or the SC, what do YOU think their intentions were with the second amendment?

You mean the "founding fathers"? If that is what you mean, I sincerely don't see the founding fathers as even being able to comprehend what the US would look like in 200 years and I don't think they envisioned the 2nd Amendment as a big deal. It was something that had to be included for 2 reasons: 1) it was already part of the English Bill of Rights and 2) without it they don't get the support of anti-Federalists. I don't claim to be a historian, but that is what i have read and it makes sense to me.  At that time everyone rightfully distrusted the government and arms were needed for daily survival.

I don't even know what to say to that. I think it's clear they included it to help ensure we'd never be taken over......kind of a big deal.

I mean that I dont think it  wasn't controversial to include it, but I could be wrong. I am not a historian.

No amendments are controversial , they are consensus , or else you wouldn't have the overewhelming majority needed to pass one.  The fact that nearly everyone in the government during that time believed this right needed to be added and assured should clue you in to the importance they placed on it.

Now , while you attempt to think of more ways to render the 2nd amendment impotent , enjoy this gun made out of peanut butter:

[Pewter Pirate]

  Arms and militia go hand in hand with the 2nd amendment.  The arms are necessary for a militia of citizens to form and defend themselves from the government.   All that mattered is that the citizens had access to arms 200 years later if necessary to defend themselves against a government gone bad, not just a rifle to shoot at a squirrel.

i understand your argument...but if you dont have this militia formed BEFORE the turds hit the fan, its gonna be useless.

Historically militias form when the citizens' backs are against the wall.  Access to arms is their only defense.  You take that away and they are defenseless. 

[Pewter Pirate]

Well you should know that I find both sides to be a joke, and the R's vs D's nonsense is little more than a distraction aimed at fools.

And I think everyone saw what was coming, and what's to come....including the founding fathers.

Vin answer me this, without referencing Heller or the SC, what do YOU think their intentions were with the second amendment?

You mean the "founding fathers"? If that is what you mean, I sincerely don't see the founding fathers as even being able to comprehend what the US would look like in 200 years and I don't think they envisioned the 2nd Amendment as a big deal. It was something that had to be included for 2 reasons: 1) it was already part of the English Bill of Rights and 2) without it they don't get the support of anti-Federalists. I don't claim to be a historian, but that is what i have read and it makes sense to me.  At that time everyone rightfully distrusted the government and arms were needed for daily survival.

You are correct, you should not claim to be an historian.  Obviously you did not know that many of the leaders lf the American Revolution were financially ruined and their families cruelly tortured.  They did envision the 2nd Amendment being a big deal. They were in a bloody tortuous war.  It is the SECOND amendment, not the 20th.   Arms and militia go hand in hand with the 2nd amendment.  The arms are necessary for a militia of citizens to form and defend themselves from the government.  No matter what technology they did or did not envision 200 years later did not matter to them. All that mattered is that the citizens had access to arms 200 years later if necessary to defend themselves against a government gone bad, not just a rifle to shoot at a squirrel.

Well, I am no historian and you certainly seem to be, but I would just point this out:

"The Second Amendment was relatively uncontroversial at the time of its ratification.[72] Robert Whitehill, a delegate from Pennsylvania, sought to clarify the draft Constitution with a bill of rights explicitly granting individuals the right to hunt on their own land in season,[73] though Whitehill's language was never debated.[74] Rather, the Constitutional delegates altered the language of the Second Amendment several times to emphasize the military context of the amendment[75] and the role of the militia as a force to defend national sovereignty,[76] quell insurrection,[77][78] and protect against tyranny"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratification_debates

This is the cite for the 2nd being uncontroversial:  "Garry Wills, A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government, Simon and Schuster, 1999, page 252. ("Until recently, the Second Amendment was a little-visited area of the Constitution. A two thousand-page commentary on the Constitution put out by the Library of Congress in 1973 has copious annotation for most clauses, but less than a page and a half for the Second Amendment.")

Never claimed to be right, that's why I said I am not a historian even though it appears at least one published historian agrees with me.

That is correct it was not controversial as all of the delegates knew unequivocally that a militia was necessary to protect against tyranny as quoted in your cite above.     If the arms are not available, a militia cannot form against tyranny.  It is this logic that seems to escape persons who want guns banned, even those on the S.Ct.

[GameTime]

Historically militias form when the citizens' backs are against the wall.  Access to arms is their only defense.  You take that away and they are defenseless.

historically, there was no fast food or internet.  if you think assault rifles are needed for a future stand against our own govt, great.  but if i were you i would start forming that militia today rather than once your back is to the wall.

[spartan]

Well, here it is quoted from Heller:

"Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret 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.” 1

    The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.”

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.”

I am trying really hard to follow the "logic" you are trying to quote and I'm not sure if you misunderstand what you are reading or not since the three sentences all fail to support your contention.

You in particular fail to understand the sentence here" The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. " You are reading this as "The term was (ONLY) applied...." when it must be most properly read as "he term was (ALSO) applied...."

The usual argument vs the second amendment for a long, long time was that it ONLY protected military grade weapons and a militia so it didn't cover joe blow's shotgun or uncle bob's 30-06. The quote you mined is designed to specifically counter that argument. you are using it grossly out of context or else that paragraph you clipped was written by the schitzo.

That's not actually correct, either the reading or the analysis.  No disrespect intended. Let me explain:

 To start with, the quote is just one part of the long reasoning by the Court in support of its CONCLUSION that the 2nd Am. only protects guns regularly found and legally used (I am paraphrasing) by the citizenry.  I posted the link to the actual opinion and have quoted it heavily here in this thread. If there is one thing EVERYONE should be able to agree on its that the holding of Heller was that the 2nd only protects guns regularly found and legally used (I am paraphrasing) by the citizenry (The issue in Heller was the DC handgun ban, The Court struck the law down because handguns are regularly found and legally used in defense of homes so it was unconstitutional to ban them. That would not have been the result if the DC law banned machine guns)

Now, part of the Court's reasoning included an analysis -- which you are free to disagree with --- that the term "arms" as it was used at the time of the ratification of the 2nd amendment meant the ordinary, non-military arms that, for example, a farmer would have on his farm.  Scalia, the author of the majority's opinion, is an ORIGINALIST ( Here he is --  "Examining what the Founders meant when writing the Constitution is the best method for judging cases, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Friday during a lecture sponsored by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Freedom of Expression")

So Scalia did what he is want to do and he (and the majority) dissected the phrase "right to bear arms" by starting with "arms" and saying that "arms" applied then and through history to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity  I didn't say ONLY and, more importantly, the Court did not say ONLY because they didn't need to.  All the Court was trying to do (because Scalia is an ORIGINALIST) was show that there was an actual historical underpinning for the Court's 2008 interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The very paragraph I quoted acknowledges at there were other interpretations of the word, but the Court found the "arms" = "non-military" the most compelling definition.

Lastly, I think your last paragraph is a reference to the Miller decision, but  your description is off (or, to be fair,  it could just be  that my reading of your description is off).  It sounds like you have it backwards, but again it could be that I misunderstand what you're trying to say.

I agree with Dalbuc here and it is what I was trying to say before. Stevens, in his dissent (according to Scalia because I haven't read it) was arguing that the 2nd Amendment only pertains to a military capacity. Scalia's argument is that is incorrect in that NOT ONLY does it refer to a standard militia marching around in pretty uniforms, but it also refers to civilian usage AS WELL. His argument was it is not either/or, but BOTH.

He does concede that this right can be limited in the case of, as Vin points out, 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'  Back then I would think canons would high on the list, today, IMO machine guns, anti-aircraft missiles etc. But, The phrase used permits a degree of ambiguity and allows for an assault weapons ban. IMO.

[Chief Joseph]

 "What good are rifles against tanks and bombers?"

This is a pretty absurd argument. One has only to review the history of one country attempting to occupy another to realize just how damned difficult it is. Is the army of insurgents expected to sit still while the tanks and bombers locate them? The whole point of guerrilla warfare is to hit them where they aren't and then disperse. Tanks and bombers are only viable in support of ground troops.

Realizing how difficult it is to occupy a people that don't want to be occupied, let's add a few elements. If you're attempting to occupy your own country, soldiers will be fighting their own countrymen. There will be mass desertions, and those troops will take their weapons with them - straight to the opposing side. Even more damaging, when you occupy a foreign country you have an external supply system. All those tanks and bombers and the fuel, parts, and supplies needed to operate them come into "safe zones" from outside the country. Try occupying your own country, and now your entire supply chain is surrounded by armed insurgents.

Now maybe some of you boys will grab your rifle and run up to the first tank you see and engage in a very brief duel. But me, I'm going to be spreading your army thin. I'm going to be making sure that you have to guard every single asset you've got. And when your fuel depot is too lightly guarded, I'll be there. And when you're not watching the refinery, I'll be there. Sorry to hear about your port facilities, looks like you won't be bringing in any rubber. Doesn't matter, your tire warehouse has already burned down. Whoops, seems you overlooked how important that ball bearing factory was to you. Shame about that facility that made triggering devices. Damn, who would have dreamed that farmers would be reluctant to feed their occupiers? You wanna bomb me? You'll have to bomb every square foot of this country, 'cause that's where I'm at. I am everywhere. I am nowhere. I am at the place where you are not, and I am f*cking up your sh*t.

How's your tanks and bombers rolling now, bichez? 'Cause I've still got my rifle. You want it? Come take it, ya liberal pansy ass.

[GameTime]

"What good are rifles against tanks and bombers?"

This is a pretty absurd argument. One has only to review the history of one country attempting to occupy another to realize just how damned difficult it is. Is the army of insurgents expected to sit still while the tanks and bombers locate them? The whole point of guerrilla warfare is to hit them where they aren't and then disperse. Tanks and bombers are only viable in support of ground troops.

Realizing how difficult it is to occupy a people that don't want to be occupied, let's add a few elements. If you're attempting to occupy your own country, soldiers will be fighting their own countrymen. There will be mass desertions, and those troops will take their weapons with them - straight to the opposing side. Even more damaging, when you occupy a foreign country you have an external supply system. All those tanks and bombers and the fuel, parts, and supplies needed to operate them come into "safe zones" from outside the country. Try occupying your own country, and now your entire supply chain is surrounded by armed insurgents.

Now maybe some of you boys will grab your rifle and run up to the first tank you see and engage in a very brief duel. But me, I'm going to be spreading your army thin. I'm going to be making sure that you have to guard every single asset you've got. And when your fuel depot is too lightly guarded, I'll be there. And when you're not watching the refinery, I'll be there. Sorry to hear about your port facilities, looks like you won't be bringing in any rubber. Doesn't matter, your tire warehouse has already burned down. Whoops, seems you overlooked how important that ball bearing factory was to you. Shame about that facility that made triggering devices. Damn, who would have dreamed that farmers would be reluctant to feed their occupiers? You wanna bomb me? You'll have to bomb every square foot of this country, 'cause that's where I'm at. I am everywhere. I am nowhere. I am at the place where you are not, and I am f*cking up your sh*t.

How's your tanks and bombers rolling now, bichez? 'Cause I've still got my rifle. You want it? Come take it, ya liberal pansy ass.

as long as you've got some plans before the cell towers go down.  i wonder how your army of guys will listen when they dont have down comforters, supersized value meals, and cable tv.  i wonder how you will spread your plans to your army without their SUVs and GPS systems.  and i wonder why anyone is gonna put their trust into your hands.

but then again, i dont buy the whole idea of our govt turning on ourselves.

[Chief Joseph]

 " but then again, i dont buy the whole idea of our govt turning on ourselves."

Yep, they never do... until they come for your guns.

[GameTime]

 " but then again, i dont buy the whole idea of our govt turning on ourselves."

Yep, they never do... until they come for your guns.

has it ever happened?

[Pewter Pirate]

 " but then again, i dont buy the whole idea of our govt turning on ourselves."

Yep, they never do... until they come for your guns.

has it ever happened?

Many times throughout history.  Power corrupts very easily.

[Chief Joseph]

Everyone should be required to read Machiavelli for a general outline of the principles, and then 'The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich' for a specific case study. It can happen. It does happen. It will happen... unless we prevent it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

[McBarron]

 " but then again, i dont buy the whole idea of our govt turning on ourselves."

Yep, they never do... until they come for your guns.

has it ever happened?

How the hell do you think our country came about?

All empires fall. ALL EMPIRES FALL........i can keep going.....

Anyone who 'trusts' our politicians is a 100% dumbass-fuggin-sheep.

Each day that passes, Washington gets more and more corrupt. Washington's worst enemy is the internet. The internet has opened a billion more doors to talk about current events, politics, etc. Before Gore invented the internet, you pretty much had newspapers, TV (far fewer outlets, BTW), and radio. The internet trumps the piss out of the aforementioned.

Knowledge is power.

[spartan]

but then again, i dont buy the whole idea of our govt turning on ourselves.

You mean like forcing the Catholic Church to provide goods and services that is contrary to their religious beliefs?