They Want to Take Your Guns

How is it not relevant?
You're trying to make the point that access to, and thus the high number, of guns in the US leads to misuse of guns at a rate higher than the rest of the western world; that being the case the only relevant comparison is the number of guns compared to the number of guns misused.

For every gun in the US used to commit murder today, 16,000,000 were not.
Your turn.

While you're at it, feel free to address these questions you keep skipping over:
-What principle behind the right to keep and bear arms applied then but not today?
-Rights should be limited to what the people in 1791 could envision?

 

It STARTS with
"A well regulated militia being necessary" and you keep trying to pretend it doesn't

 

Not meaning to horn-in on your discussion with TOG6, but I would like some clarification of the above statement: Is it your position that a violent crime involving a handgun would have been prevented if the handgun itself had not been present?

 

There's 200 million people in the US...the vst number of those DON'T commit murder. Does that mean that murder should be ignored?

 

Again, irrelevant to the point made.
Nowhere does the 2nd state that the right only applies to those in the militia.
But, you know that.

 

Not everyone had the right to vote in 1791. Laws and rights do change.

It is not question of what principle applied then but does not apply now. Rather, we need to look beyond the principle to the actual facts at hand. Weapons have evolved a great deal since 1791. The law must also.

And I'm making the point that having these easily portable and concealable guns readily available is leading to gun crimes and gun accidents. It is causing many preventable deaths and injuries.

 

It expresses the intent behind the amendment, its purpose.

 

The best way for you to understand the limits of the 2nd Amendment, is to see what gun control existed for American citizens back in 1789. It was not the custom or the law to have those in prison to have guns on them. Convicted violent felons generally did not live long before their executions back in this time.

Also, please explain what the word "infringed" means now that it didn't back in 1789.

 

Well, not necessarily. This would have to be examined on a case by case basis.

 

Oh, how I love correcting you - and you make it so easy!
There's more than 318,000,000 people in the US.
If, of those 318,000,000 people, 8500 (0.00267%) died of starvation, exposure, or cancer per year, no one would notice.

 

Yes -- and when do you start your effort to repeal the 2nd? You didn't say...
You ALSO have not addressed the question I asked:
Rights should be limited to what the people in 1791 could envision?
Tell us how he 4th amendment protects conversations on your cell phone.

Incorrect.
Your argument against the 2nd - :"this amendment is no longer appropriate" - is directed at the principle behind it; that is the reason it was placed in the constitution.
So, I ask again:
-What principle behind the right to keep and bear arms applied then but not today?

The court, for the last 80 years, disagrees. Thus, you are again left with amending the constitution.

To do that, as noted before, you have to compare the number of "easily portable and concealable" guns to the number of related crimes and accidents.
But you won't try because you know the numbers do not support your position.

 

Nowhere does the 2nd state that the right only applies to those in the militia.
Thus:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

 

Great. Your distinction without a difference made your point weaker

 

You were off by almost 60%
That 60% makes my argument -- an argument you did not even try to address, because you know you cannot -- STRONGER than if the population were 200M, as per your erroneous claim.

 

The courts interpret the laws. They don't have the power to go against the 2nd, and the 2nd is not specific enough to allow the courts to support the banning of any kind of gun. I'm actually a little surprised that we're not allowed fully automatic weapons at this point.

And I imagine you would be cool with that, and wouldn't care when they were abused to kill many people, just as long as it's a small minority of them so used, right?

And yes, I did respond to your question - Rights should be limited to what the people in 1791 could envision?
The short and incomplete answer is obviously no. Various rights have been expanded since that time.

What principle behind the right to keep and bear arms applied then but not today? - Not the issue. Technology has changed and calls for a more adequate law to address it.

 

Indeed-- given the wording of the 2nd, there's no question it protects the right to own and use a machine-gun.

Given that a total of one legally-owned machine gun has been used to commit a crime, I don't see any issue whatsoever.

So much your your references to flintlocks and muskets. The court agrees, of course.

How, specifically, has technology affected the principles behind the 2nd in such a way that the 2nd amendment is "no longer appropriate"?

 

I would venture to guess that any violent person who has achieved sufficient motivation to decide to take the life of another, would not be deterred by the mere lack of a handgun... when a clenched fist, machete or a baseball bat can be just as lethal when misused in a similar manner.

 

How in the hell can you claim it's "unconnected" from the militia clause when the militia clause is right there in that very short amendment.

Show us where is says "the following clause is here but means nothing in regards to what follows".

 

Asked, and answered, a dozen times, with a response you cannot substantively address, as you have yet to do so.

2. Prefatory Clause.

The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … .”

a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939) , we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades … and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”).

Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment , we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise … Armies”; “to provide … a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

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.

There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.

3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and Operative Clause

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981). John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.” 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people. See, e.g., A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 178, in The Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed., 2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; Remarks on the Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in id., at 556. It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself.

Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a “novel principl[e]” but rather codified a right “inherited from our English ancestors,” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281 (1897) , petitioners’ interpretation does not even achieve the narrower purpose that prompted codification of the right. If, as they believe, the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petititioners 8—if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment ’s guarantee—it does not assure the existence of a “citizens’ militia” as a safeguard against tyranny. For Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia, which must include the authority to say who will belong to the organized force.17 That is why the first Militia Act’s requirement that only whites enroll caused States to amend their militia laws to exclude free blacks. See Siegel, The Federal Government’s Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev. 477, 521–525 (199. Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendment protects citizens’ right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people’s militia that was the concern of the founding generation.

 

Because guns present a greater danger to life and limb in their current form than they did then, and we see that there is rampant abuse of them, and that the police are forced to respond with more weaponry and more brutal tactics in return, and that many people must now live in fear of being assailed by armed criminals, and so on.

I doubt that the kind of murder, especially mass murder, that we see today was an issue in 1791.

So much your your references to flintlocks and muskets. The court agrees, of course. - No. Again, the law at the time could only apply to flintlocks and muskets. And as I've said, the courts do not have the power to change the law. You should not cite court rulings as a basis for not repealing the 2nd Amendment, since the courts simply do not have that power. To attempt it would be legislation from the bench and is not in their purview.

 

I agree, but handguns are a more deadly means than many alternatives, and more concealable and portable than other guns.

 

You know all of this was addressed by, and then dismissed by, the court, right?

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. 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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

So, you're back to repealing the 2nd.
When do you start?

 

prefatory
The adjective prefatory describes something that serves as a beginning or introduction. The president of the organization made some prefatoryremarks before the main speaker at the event.

Prefatory is often used to describe an introduction to a speech, book, or other text. If you are asked to speak on a highly controversial subject, you may want to first offer some prefatory remarks that you are only offering your opinion. But at least half the audience will disagree with whatever you say anyway. Your will may have a prefatory clause explaining why you've left everything to your cat Fluffy and not to your awful siblings.

In other words...it's there to tell us why what comes after it is there

 

You keep saying "the court" when you actually mean SCALIA

 

And by that measure should be regulated with the same reasoning as machine guns for the same reasoning