The Political Party

[guido61]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

 

So the mechanics of guns change in the hands of cops?

The mechanics of guns doesn't change. What changes is the situations in which they are needed. What was the specifics of this situation you described? You said a shootout in which several cops needed over 100 rounds combined to overtake the assailant.  Well, that sounds like a chase and/or a surround-the-building-and-get-the-guy situation. Nothing the average citizen should or would or legally could be involved in.

We don't go chasing down bad guys or try to smoke them out of their hiding places. You have a legal right to defend yourself with a gun. Somebody breaks into your house, and you can scare them off or injure them or even kill them if you need to. They present a threat to you in public, and you can do the same thing to a certain degree.

But you don't need large-cap mags to do those things. Or an assault rifle. You're not going to be involved in some shootout in your home where several bad guys are determined to enter and the only way you can defend yourself is to fire off a hundred rounds. If you are, then you're involved in some shit you should probably already be in jail for anyway.

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

TIMKEYS wrote:

---

guido61 wrote:

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:
LOL! Isn't the point to talk about changing what happened? But I get it, this is some place you just don't want to go. Your trip to common sense land has its limits!

Yes. And the way to change things is to MAKE CHANGES. Not by keep doing what we're already doing and hoping for better results next time.

 Oh, I think it has. I remember not that long ago some shootout with police where they took almost 100 bullets to get the guy. That's between a number of cops, but still - it's a lot of bullets

We're talking about private citizens, not the cops.

. Your first statment is obviously true, and your last sentence is obviously wrong.

---

No, the last sentence is correct as well. Nobody has ever needed 30 rounds to protect themselves.

---

We are not talking about 30 rounds,, we are talking about 12 rounds in the proposed national law obama wants and  9 rounds in NY.     Why did my sig 226 come with a 15 round mag from the factory if no one needs more than a 10 round mag?    Its one of the finest semi automatic handguns in the world.   Its standard issue all over this country and the world for self protection.   Police carry handguns for their protection , not yours.  

---

Right.  That was really my point in the first place, thanks for bringing it back around.  I don't want to succomb to the temptation to become extreme in response to the extremists.

As guido says, nobody wants a crazy to be able to buy an arsenal and drive to a movie theater, so sure, let's review the law, see what may have slipped through the cracks.  But making big pronouncements about limiting a 15 round mag to 10 rounds, or whatever, that's just political distraction from doing something meaningful.  That was really all I was trying to say.

[mdwagner73]

---

yanktar wrote:
"I disagree, the Constitution is the law and the law matters.  Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't matter."

I fully agree. And the 2nd Amendment says: "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the securty of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It does NOT say: "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To quote your own words back at you: "Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't matter."
You don't get to throw out half of the 2nd Amendment just because you don't like it.

---

 I didn't throw out anything, the first part doesn't change the meaning of the 2nd part.  As I've already pointed out in this thread. 

[guido61]

---

yanktar wrote:
"I disagree, the Constitution is the law and the law matters.  Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't matter."

I fully agree. And the 2nd Amendment says: "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the securty of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It does NOT say: "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To quote your own words back at you: "Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't matter."
You don't get to throw out half of the 2nd Amendment just because you don't like it.

---

From Heller:

 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 rephrased, “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.”  See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).  Although this structure of the  Second Amendment  is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.  See generally Volokh, The Commonplace  Second Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).

    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.”  That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.”  The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.)  But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.  See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3“ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ”  J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)).  Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.4

[Used2BMarkoh]

You know, not really to start another debate, but - I've often been struck by the cognitive dissonance of the standard lib position of being against global disarmament (Iraq, Iran) but for disarming our country.  So Iran should be allowed to have a nuke, what business is it of ours, but your neighbor must not (gasp!) get a kick out of firing off clusters at the range.

And hey, I'd just as soon not live next to rednecks that get a kick out of wasting bullets.  I just place a high value on freedom, that's all, so I don't support a nanny government.  Guido thinks they should tell you what lightbulbs to buy, I think they should maybe think about having a budget and not trashing the whole dang economic foundation of our country.

[Mossy Mossy Mo…]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

You know, not really to start another debate, but - I've often been struck by the cognitive dissonance of the standard lib position of being against global disarmament (Iraq, Iran) but for disarming our country.  So Iran should be allowed to have a nuke, what business is it of ours, but your neighbor must not (gasp!) get a kick out of firing off clusters at the range.

And hey, I'd just as soon not live next to rednecks that get a kick out of wasting bullets.  I just place a high value on freedom, that's all, so I don't support a nanny government.  Guido thinks they should tell you what lightbulbs to buy, I think they should maybe think about having a budget and not trashing the whole dang economic foundation of our country.

---

Markoh does love his straw men. 

[guido61]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

You know, not really to start another debate, but - I've often been struck by the cognitive dissonance of the standard lib position of being against global disarmament (Iraq, Iran) but for disarming our country.  So Iran should be allowed to have a nuke, what business is it of ours, but your neighbor must not (gasp!) get a kick out of firing off clusters at the range.

And hey, I'd just as soon not live next to rednecks that get a kick out of wasting bullets.  I just place a high value on freedom, that's all, so I don't support a nanny government.  Guido thinks they should tell you what lightbulbs to buy, I think they should maybe think about having a budget and not trashing the whole dang economic foundation of our country.

---

Detecting such cognative dissonance is often a result of one viewing the world through their own filter of cognative dissonance.   It's little surprise that the people who most often see the other side as "extreme" are extremists themselves.

This debate is perfect example.  On one side we have people shouting "MILITIA! MILITIA!" and on the other side shouting "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" and both citing "all you need to do is be able to read plain English to understand!" as their support for their position.

So what happens when two diametrically-opposed "plain English" interpretations exist regarding the Constitution?  We let the Supreme Court sort it out.   And they did on this issue.

By declaring BOTH extremes to be wrong. 

A) You have an individual right to keep and bear arms and to protect yourself with a gun.  No need to join a militia required.

B) The government can impose ALL SORTS of regulations and restrictions on the types of weapons available and how you can go about getting them without your basic right being infringed.

That's the reality, peeps.  Deal with it.

[yanktar]

" I didn't throw out anything, the first part doesn't change the meaning of the 2nd part.  As I've already pointed out in this thread."

Sure you did. Your fundamental understanding of the 2nd Amendment is totally wrong. Sorry. As pointed out in another thread, the 2nd was written and advocated primarily by SOUTHERN representatives, especially James Madison. The lengthy article distilled down to this: The 2nd Amendment was written so that the Southern states could retain their right to state militias in order to...SUPRRESS SLAVE REBELLIONS AND INSURRECTIONS! IOW, they wanted to make sure the Federal Government could not prevent them keeping other human beings in bondage, as property. That's why the phrase is "Free State" and not "Free Nation". The "right" so fervently prayed to as if it was holy was the "right" to kill human beings who wanted THEIR rights, too! (and were denied them).

Amazing how right-wingers and gun nuts (as opposed to gun owners) demand that the Constitution be followed word-for-word...unless it gets in their way. Then they see it as a menu in a Chinese Restaurant: "Choose one from Column A and two from Column B".

Ironically, you all are now applying this even to the Heller decision, which reversed at least 70 years of precedent.
OK, Heller established that we HAVE the right to own a weapon. But Scalia specifically wrote that we do NOT have the right to own ANY weapon, nor do we not have the right to have no restrictions on the weapons we own.
Sure, it's legal to own a machine gun. BUT...it's also legal for the state to require that you have a license for it.
It's also legal for the state to prevent certain people from owning weapons. The most OBVIOUS example is jailed and imprisoned persons, either awaiting trial or convicted. Sounds silly? But they are still citizens. Further, paroled, work-released, and probationed convicts are forbidden firearms. Nobody seems to have a problem with that. Even ex-cons, who have served their time, may be forbidden firearms.

Your "right" under Heller to own arms doesn't mean it's unlimited. To own a functional machine gun, whether a Thomson sub-machine gun, a 19th Century Gatling, or a modern M-16 requires licensing, which can be denied to you. You cannot own a Stinger shoulder-fired missile, or an RPG. So your "right" to unlimited firearms doesn't exist, merely your right to own a firearm. Scalia was d@mned clear about that.

The Aurora case was particularly disturbing because, by firing in a theater with lots of black and white and flashing on the screen, the shooter GUARANTEED that nobody could shoot at him unless they didn't care about hitting other patrons--BECAUSE IN SUCH LIMITED VISIBILITY IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY THE SHOOTER! Of course from HIS POV, since EVERYONE in the theater was a target, he could shoot wantonly.

There is not one case in the last 15 years of a solid citizen using a gun to stop one of these sick mass killers, no matter HOW many bullets they had. In the cases where the shooter was stopped, the stoppers were either: LEOs or unarmed. That's the fact.

[guido61]

Yanktar:

I agree with most of what you just posted but will point out one error:

"Free State" and "Free Nation" mean the same thing. They weren't talking about the individual states, but the collective state.

[yanktar]

Guido:
Go back and find that thread (not sure where it is and I'm far from home with only an iPad, with its limitations like no quoting).
The Southern authors of the 2nd were terrified that the the Federal Govenment could conceivably use the "Militia" clause of Article 1 to do away with slavery. Patrick Henry even argued as much. So "State" meant the states because "Nation" meant the Federales and they couldn't face that. Remember: Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were ALL Southernors and held the Presidency from 1801 to 1825 (when JQ Adams came in).

[guido61]

---

yanktar wrote:
Guido:
Go back and find that thread (not sure where it is and I'm far from home with only an iPad, with its limitations like no quoting).
The Southern authors of the 2nd were terrified that the the Federal Govenment could conceivably use the "Militia" clause of Article 1 to do away with slavery. Patrick Henry even argued as much. So "State" meant the states because "Nation" meant the Federales and they couldn't face that. Remember: Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were ALL Southernors and held the Presidency from 1801 to 1825 (when JQ Adams came in).

---

Perhaps.

Scalia, in Heller, holds a different view of the meaning of "state":

b. “Security of a Free State.”  The phrase “security of a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security of each of the several States as the dissent below argued, see 478 F. 3d, at 405, and n. 10.  Joseph Story wrote in his treatise on the Constitution that “the word ‘state’ is used in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it means the people composing a particular nation or community.”  1 Story §208; see also 3 id., §1890 (in reference to the  Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause: “The militia is the natural defence of a free country”).  It is true that the term “State” elsewhere in the Constitution refers to individual States, but the phrase “security of a free state” and close variations seem to have been terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a “ ‘free country’ ” or free polity.  See Volokh, “Necessary to the Security of a Free State,” 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1, 5 (2007); see, e.g., 4 Blackstone 151 (1769); Brutus Essay III (Nov. 15, 1787), in The Essential Antifederalist 251, 253 (W. Allen & G. Lloyd eds., 2d ed. 2002).  Moreover, the other instances of “state” in the Constitution are typically accompanied by modifiers making clear that the reference is to the several States—“each state,” “several states,” “any state,” “that state,” “particular states,” “one state,” “no state.”  And the presence of the term “foreign state” in Article I and Article III shows that the word “state” did not have a single meaning in the Constitution.

[TIMKEYS]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

TIMKEYS wrote:

---

We are not talking about 30 rounds,, we are talking about 12 rounds in the proposed national law obama wants and  9 rounds in NY.     Why did my sig 226 come with a 15 round mag from the factory if no one needs more than a 10 round mag?    Its one of the finest semi automatic handguns in the world.   Its standard issue all over this country and the world for self protection.   Police carry handguns for their protection , not yours.  

---

Whatever the best place to draw the line on clip-size might be, I'll leave for the legislatures and courts to decide.  7? 10? 12? 15?  I dunno.   Something much less than 100, for sure though.

---

I see you are tired of making a fool of yourself..   Same old dave.   drones on and one till its obvious you are comming off like an idiot ,, then you pull back and make your retreat.  

[guido61]

---

TIMKEYS wrote:

---

---

I see you are tired of making a fool of yourself..   Same old dave.   drones on and one till its obvious you are comming off like an idiot ,, then you pull back and make your retreat.  

---

LOL... what ARE you talking about?  What have I "pulled back" on?  Where did I ever say I had some specfic clip-size in mind?  You've been the one whining about the 7-round limit in NY.  I've talked mostly about 30- and 100- round clips because obviously any reasonable number would be much lower than those.

Once again, you need to read what I post instead of just reading into it what you want to see.

[yanktar]

Dave,
While Scalia's definition is the current Law of the land, and you are right about that, HE defines "state" in the generalist term to mean the nation, he is still historically wrong and has effectively rewritten the 2nd Amendment. I guess judicial activism is OK when Scalia does it.

[guido61]

---

yanktar wrote:
Dave,
While Scalia's definition is the current Law of the land, and you are right about that, HE defines "state" in the generalist term to mean the nation, he is still historically wrong and has effectively rewritten the 2nd Amendment. I guess judicial activism is OK when Scalia does it.

---

No it's not OK when he does it.  As I've said, I rarely agree with Scalia on ANYTHING.  As I'm sure you probably know, my liberal leanings are on full display around this place most of the time.

I just think he got THIS one mostly right.  I'm not convinced he wasn't reaching for the definition of "state", but I'll just say that his case is solid enough--certainly the definition of state=nation exists.  Whether the authors of the 2nd intended that or not?  That's much harder to say.   But having said that, I'm not sure how much it matters one way or the other.  The key to his ruling is the individual right to bear arms, which I agree with.

I've said this before, but I did a good deal of research into the 2nd amendment several years ago when I was trying to find a good argument to ban handguns.  I thought the "militia" argument was a pretty good one.  I read a LOT of early writings on the 2nd amendment.  But it became clear to me during that process that the founders pretty much pre-assumed that people could own a gun for self-protection and hunting.  It was just such an ingrained part of the culture that they really didn't feel the need to spell THAT out in the Bill of Rights.  They didn't dream that any government would take away someone's gun because "we don't want you to protect yourself with it".   Guns just didn't present THAT much of danger.  They were largely unwieldy and/or ineffective.  Most people survived duels because the pistols sucked so badly.

The stuff we're dealing with now---somebody going into a public place with a gun and shooting up a bunch of people---just simply didn't even register with them.  So yeah, they expected people to be able to own guns for their own use. 

The militia thing?  Well, Scalia pretty much declares that to be outdated and I agree with that as well.  I don't know that much about the history you speak of about it being mostly about a sop to the slave states.  It could be.  I'll look that up and read more about.  I'm just not sure it matters much at this point in time.  It's interesting constitutional history like the 3/5s clause. 

I just know we aren't going to go back to the earlier "militia" interpretation of the 2nd amendment anytime soon.  I also know that, thankfully, Scalia left a HUGE door open for regulating weapons.  So rather than focus on stuff like the militia clause, I'd rather focus on what's most realistic and possible.  And that's getting rid of the most egregious weapons and large cap mags. 

It's not going to be the Constitution that stands in the way of doing that.  It's the NRA and the GOP.

[yanktar]

Dave,
You got me wrong..or I wasn't clear. I didn't think YOU agreed with Scalia, generally.

But the thread "The Second Amendment was written to protect slavery" cites the following:

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

[Grumpy_Polecat]

"MILITIA: IT'S NOT EVERYONE.....BY DEFINITION"

Who said otherwise?

[Zooey]

---

Grumpy_Polecat wrote:

"MILITIA: IT'S NOT EVERYONE.....BY DEFINITION"

Who said otherwise?

---

I've seen the argument made on this forum.  It's important to some people to claim that in addition to the organized militia (the national guard) there is a mystical unorganized militia that everybody is a part of whether they know it or not.  I guess the logic is the right to bear arms applies to everybody because everybody is part of a militia.

There are two problems with this.  First, you don't need to be part of a militia for the right to bear arms to attach.  Second, even if membership in a militia were required for 2nd Amendment purposes (it is not), the unorganized militia doesn't really sound like the "well regulated" militia described in the 2nd Amendment.

[Caulk Rocket]

---

guido61 wrote:

Where will the line be drawn as to what and what not can be banned/restricted?

Again, we'll have to take our cue from "Heller". Remember, Heller was a decision that reversed a ban on handguns. Once Scalia determined the individual right to bear arms and the ability of the government to ban/restrict weapons, the next obvious question would be "is the handgun ban legal?"

For that, Scalia went back to the Miller decision banning sawed-off shotguns. And in Miller it was decided that the ban was legal because such weapons were not in "common use" at the time.  Scalia decided handguns WERE a "common use" weapon.  Thereby he was able to reverse the handgun ban without reversing Miller.  Again, threading the needle.

Some here have argued that the AR-15 is a "common" weapon. It may be. It may not. That will likely be for some future court to decide. Probably not the SC either. SCs hate to address every issue that arises from recent decisions. My guess would be that if that gun is banned, some federal appeals court will decide whether or not the AR-15 meets the standard of "common use" and the SC will let the decision stand either way.

Just my guess, of course.

---

Very few "sawed off" shotguns are physically sawn off. 

Most would simply become AOW, requiring a tax stamp. Still legal to own. 

[GTRMAN]

The writings of Jefferson, Washington, Madison, et al were quite detailed as to whom the Second Amendment pertained to. They were unanimous in their assertion that it was meant to protect the rights of the common citizenry to possess arms. Interestingly, they did not mention such a right for police officers or private security guards.