Slashdot Mirror

After all the 2nd amendment does say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." so let's for once enforce that part of the amendment. Good idea.

You know what would be a good idea? Knowing what well-regulated means. The purpose of the second amendment was to eliminate the need for a standing military, since the authors of the 2a knew that a standing military was harmful to freedom.

I don't think mandatory conscription for all is a good idea or necessary given the likely dangers to the US.

No, you only think people who want to own guns should be enslaved. You're a highly selective kind of slaver.

Well-regulated at the time simply meant functioning normally, not the current administrative-state definition in use today. In other words, people were expected to be proficient with their guns.

You can see how well that has turned out:

* https://twitter.com/well_regulated_

IMHO you should have to practice with (friend's?) firearm until you're an A-classification in IPSC (or IPDA equiv.), and Grand Master if you want a CCW.

Well-regulated at the time simply meant functioning normally, not the current administrative-state definition in use today. In other words, people were expected to be proficient with their guns.

> While I appreciate your ability to bend things to fit your ideas

First, I'll respond with a link:
http://constitution.org/cons/w...

Showing uses of "regulated", in natural language, in historical context.

Ok, here's another link. This one is more wordy, on account of it being the Virginia ratification of the constitution.
https://www.usconstitution.net...

One of the biggest pieces of drama was the lack of a bill of rights; drafting one up was of utmost important. George Mason, who is the coauthor of the bill of rights, spoke during this (relevant quotes on topic: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people." and "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."). The ratification linked includes the demand:
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."

So plenty of the founders in Virginia, at least, including the coauthor of the bill of rights, were absolutely clear on what they meant about "the people have a right to keep and bear arms". Remember, the second amendment wasn't just dropped on everyone's heads apropos of nothing: it was well understood that keeping and bearing arms was necessary to resist tyranny, because *they had just done exactly that*. Certainly, no one reading at the time was confused about a fucking comma (that confusion is a 20th century construct manufactured by gun control advocates; one with no historical basis).

> I don't think that they intended everyone to be running around with weapons all the time

They literally fucking did. Not to belabor the point, but that exact thing was how they just won a revolutionary war.

Here's the first ever state of the union:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

So the people should have a "uniform and well-digested plan". They should be "not only armed, but disciplined". And of course they should be "independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies". If his paramount concern- or really, any fucking concern at all- was in controlling or laying laws down upon the "free people", then maybe he would have brought that up, instead of exhorting all Americans to be able to take up arms, ideally without relying on any others for military supplies.

> I think they meant that each city, county, state, etc should be able to defend itself with a recognized designated fighting force that is actually regulated

That's all your revisionism. Read their words.

Well, given the obvious meaning of well-regulated: http://constitution.org/cons/w... [constitution.org]
And the fact that the militia is the whole of the people, then yes, definitely.

Good one. "The entire citizenry is a well-regulated militia." Shit, I guess if definitions can be stretched like that then what's the point in even having a discussion?

Although: here's a thought. If the entire citizenry is a "well-regulated militia", then why do you think they included the phrase "well-regulated militia" instead of just saying "everyone"?

"Good, as long as you're part of a well-regulated militia then I'll believe you're trying to adhere to the Constitution. "

Well, given the obvious meaning of well-regulated: http://constitution.org/cons/w...
And the fact that the militia is the whole of the people, then yes, definitely.

Of course, the right to keep and bear arms is not subordinate to some clause about a militia. The right of the government to raise armies is detailed in the constitution. It would obviously not be in a list of amendments that extensively detail individual rights, and mention the people specifically and repeatedly, if it were a restatement of "hey, the government can arm people". That's lunacy- and quite debunked by the thoughts of the men who wrote the fucking thing in the first place.

"If you think people shouldn't be allowed to own fighter planes with bombs and missiles or a mini gun or hand grenades, then we're only arguing about where the line should be drawn."

The line is probably "ordnance". A mini-gun SHOULD be allowed- it's a damned shame that it's been unconstitutionally found to be ok to ban automatic weapons. Bombs, grenades, missiles, and arming them on fighter planes would not fall under "arms", just as cannons and bombs and other ordnance did not at the time. That's not to say that all of these things should definitely be banned, but that the banning of them is not constitutionally prohibited.

"libtard" comment aside, the point you should probably be aware of is the meaning of "well regulated" at the time.

http://constitution.org/cons/w...

The whole of the people are the militia of course- but that one you already knew.

No, it would be unregulated if it had no arms, or was non functional in some fashion.

http://constitution.org/cons/w...

  "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

Actual information Associated too the Post: http://www.constitution.org/ab... Its weird in a FOIA Request sent that in it.

By the way, I agree, there is very little in the way of having an actual free society somewhere in the world today, that's why we are not a civilized people. We have tried and are still trying here and there. USA was a fine attempt, Singapore is an attempt, Switzerland, hell, China is an attempt. It's an attempt but it is not what I really am talking about.

But I do have some reading material that I recommend, Friedrich Hayek and nearly any of his books, try The Road to Serfdom. You can find it here. Mises.org is a good resource if you are interested in history not as it is officially laid out but something different for a change. Peter Schiff is one of two sons of Irwin Schiff, who died a political prisoner in USA a couple of years back, Irwin provided very well thought out reading material of his own, I mean he even put together a kids book on the subject.

There is plenty to think about, don't assume that what you are seeing around you is what should be or what could be or some finalized version of what will be.

"And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly, in such wise that the prince is endangered along with them."

The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli
http://www.constitution.org/ma...

The Declaration may not be "Law", but it is _the_ single most important document in American History. The Declaration of Independence is what founded the country. The document provides both the reason for discarding rule from England

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

And the principles that the Country should, and would, have.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

I'd recommend reading the whole Document. The Constitution is the Law used to protect the rights declared.

Bullshit, if you study English history and the Militia Act of 1661 you will start to understand why it's written the way it is.

Anybody claiming the nobody talked that way would fail in history class. You can improve your knowledge of history by reading this paper at constitution.org.

First, you can't ignore the preamble to the Bill of Rights which states that the bill of rights is a list restrictions on the government. The list of rights is not a grant of rights to individuals or an empowerment of any level of government. That's why you have language such as "shall not be infringed," or "shall pass no law."

There's a very good article that discuses the history of the 2nd amendment and why it's worded the way it is at constitution.org. English history is quite informative on the 2nd amendment and the definition of a militia because English history was the history of the founders of the country and the authors of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This document also goes over the 10 of 13 colonies that suggested wording related to the 2nd amendment regarding it as an individual right. None of the remaining three colonies provided any suggestion on the wording.

It's interesting that you choose 1876 as the start of your period to discuss the Supreme Court's opinion regarding the 2nd amendment. That promotes ignoring the 1875 United States v. Cruikshank ruling that specifically stated that the right to keep and bear arms would exist even without the 2nd amendment. They ruled in 1875 that the 2nd amendment was a prohibition on the government from infringing on that right. More specifically, that case also addressed individuals having that right infringed.

One of the reasons you may not see many cases regarding the 2nd amendment related to individuals is that gun control is a fairly modern mechanism designed to completely disarm the population. The law over turned in Heller wasn't passed until 1976. Can you point to another, earlier law that completely banned the ownership of handguns in the home that was challenged in court?

So wrong. You've rewritten the Constitution in your head to mean the opposite of its intended meaning by the founders.

Madison:
"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."

Jefferson:
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Madison again. Full text: http://www.constitution.org/jm...
"To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.

To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision."

52% isn't what I'd call a 'definitive majority'. But don't take my word for it. I'll let a fellow by the name of James Madison explain to you why (among other things) sometimes you need to require a supermajority to make decisions of a certain importance:
http://www.constitution.org/fe...

So, not a single response to the actual legally backed supreme court case, but instead accusing me of being an ammosexual? I own no firearms, but apparently because I choose to defend all rights guaranteed by the constitution, I am some kind of gun lover?

Look, I get it, you are a pansy and are terrified of people owning guns, but you are the one in the minority. There are more firearms in the US than people. You have already lost the argument if you are trying to remove firearms from people's hands.

And you and all of your ammosexual friends can get together to start your own move to amend the Constitution, to take out the words "a well regulated militia". So you cultists can finally stop ignoring the first words in your Bible.

Perhaps you should go back to remedial English, since you seem to fail at grammar. "A well regulated militia" is not the only reason for the right to bear arms, it was just given as a reason, and any 5th grader could tell you by reading the sentence that it does not restrict the right to bear arms to a militia. Also, the militia was everyone, not some small subset of people who work for the government. You can keep flipping off the handle all you like, it doesn't change the actual meaning of the sentence.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

militia
mliSH/Submit
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

http://www.constitution.org/co...

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

So please, link to legal definitions that change any piece of the amendment, I will wait for your response.

Seems like the "well regulated militia" part of that right would go a long way to preventing lone mentally ill people obtaining guns and murdering large numbers of people. Time to lobby for full implementation of the 2nd Amendment.

At the time it was authored, well regulated did not mean what you think it means today, and the militia consisted of all free males of military age.

If you read the papers and letters of the Founding Fathers you'll see that "bear arms" was always used in connection with military units:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh3oKpw4_nE
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f55AjlwXCDM

Basically a state-level National Guard that everyone was mandated to be in. The individual mandate is a recent invention, specifically of the post-1977 NRA. It has no historical basis, and the USSC didn't rule that it existed until 2008:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IopMFON6BNM

Those state-level militias do not exist anymore (and actually ceased to exist shortly after ratification), and so the need to bear arms disappeared two hundred years ago:

* https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/147674744X

Seems like the "well regulated militia" part of that right would go a long way to preventing lone mentally ill people obtaining guns and murdering large numbers of people. Time to lobby for full implementation of the 2nd Amendment.

At the time it was authored, well regulated did not mean what you think it means today, and the militia consisted of all free males of military age.

When you know it's illegal, it's wrong.

So then Rosa Parks was wrong?

OK I can see that you've clearly not thought this one through.

Might want to give it another good think. Just saying.

Strat

You had to reach back 50 years to a civil rights issue (as if that's some kind of parallel here) to provide an example, and I'm the one who hasn't thought this through...riiiiight.

I chose Rosa Parks as pretty much everyone, young or old, even non-Americans, are familiar with Rosa Park's famous act of civil disobedience.

How about Mr. Edward Snowden and his whistle-blowing on the unConstitutional spying on innocent US citizens by the NSA?

There is such a thing as right & wrong, and in many cases what's "right" in most peoples' view is often illegal and what may be legal is wrong.

Legal/illegal =/= right/wrong.

It's perfectly legal for a cop to confiscate money from a citizen during the course of a traffic stop if the cop considers it to be a "suspicious" amount, with no other indication that any laws at all were broken. This is legal under current laws, but it is far, far from right.

Do not conflate moral right and wrong with legality. As often as not the two conflict.

I'm amazed that anyone needs this explained. Well, I could see someone in law enforcement or a politician/government bureaucrat being quite confused on the subject.

There's also "an unconstitutional law is no law at all", meaning that no citizen or court of law is obligated to obey an unconstitutional law, even if that law has not at the time already been found to be officially unconstitutional by the courts/SCOTUS.

http://www.constitution.org/us...

"16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

        The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

        The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

        Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

        A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

        No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Strat

Sure, why not? According to the Supreme Court, the public should be allowed to buy any firearm that the military uses.

http://www.constitution.org/2l...

They absolutely were. "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's the limit on government. They're ignoring the limit. It couldn't be any more obvious. You right to carry was infringed by coercive action of the federal government. How hard is that to figure out, really?

No. They WERE right. I'll reference the constitution society, but first a brief thought experiment. Arms != Guns. Would you be OK with someone carrying a grenade launcher, fully automatic machine gun, or nuclear weapon into a public building? So we agree, the reading of the second amendment isn't as simple as you stated.

From the constitution society: http://www.constitution.org/le...

"It is a fundamental principal in law that the owners or managers of real property have the power to regulate who may enter their premises, and to set conditions upon their entry. That includes public property."

You need to read the entire article for context. The most important point is that the right to bear arms is "self-evident". The second amendment doesn't grant that right, it recognizes it. If you repealed the second amendment, it wouldn't remove the right to bear arms. I'm very much FOR the right to bear arms. Please don't mistake my critique of your position as something else.

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment

That time, the question was "should this radical proposed document be adopted?" accompanied by the actual US Constitution. And the results were roughly the same:
http://www.constitution.org/co...

The results of this poll on Applegate are remarkably similar to a polls on the US Constitution presented as if it were some radical new proposal:

http://www.constitution.org/co...

Being that I'm not part of a well-trained militia, neither called forth by Congress nor under the command of the POTUS (article 1204), the Second Amendment does not apply to me. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for there to be laws against carrying a loaded gun on an airplane, even while there are no laws about locked luggage. By the way, you, uh, probably should've quoted the "protect yourself" statement, not the locked suitcase example that explains what I meant by "protect yourself". However, since this is in regards to the discussion of encryption, I'll admit that "protect your personal papers and privacy" would have been a better statement.

Militia means the common people being called upon to fight. Straight away this encompasses all citizens.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/g...
http://www.constitution.org/co...

(and for future reference, the English language is not static, so interpretation must be done in the context of the period a piece was written)

How do you come to that conclusion?

What about the Constitution of Medina do you find to be "very liberal" for example? It seems to be entirely theocratic, which is antithetical to liberalism.

http://www.constitution.org/co...

and what about the "well regulated Militia" part?

"well regulated" meant "in good order" at the time, not "covered by many laws".

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

"militia" meant all male citizens of adult age.

Thus, a more modern phrasing of this Amendment would be:

Because it's necessary for a free country to have its citizens be competent with militia weapons, the right of the people to own and carry firearms shall not be infringed.

No, regulations at the time just meant "it works like you'd expect it to work".

Speaking of research, while the 2nd amendment was originally intended to prevent the government from creating a standing military in times of peace, the militia's actual duties were intended to replace the military's so that there was no need. The militia wasn't there to stand against the government but to work with the government to defend the nation (although yes there was the expectation that the militia would stand against the government if it became corrupted and turned against its own people), and military training was absolutely part of the intent to qualify for being part of the militia because, as stated earlier, the militia was intended to replace a standing army. Basically, they understood even back then that guerilla warfare was the most effective means of defending the nation; the very type of warfare that the US military has still consistently failed to overcome reliably.

Most of the debate was actually about whether to allow a person to decline the bearing of arms if their religion forbade them from doing so; a statement that was eventually struck out because they thought that it would force everyone else to bear arms. Unfortunately for the Constitution, the framers seemed to prefer simplified, easily digestible, and quotable amendments to having actual clarity of the statements because they, at the time, already understood what they were talking about, no discussion necessary. If they had just used the amended lines as a summary and kept a full explanation on-hand, there (probably) wouldn't (maybe) be so much debate about the whole thing (possibly).

No, it simply means "in proper working order":

"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected."

The actual soldiers in the American Revolution couldn't hold up to the standard of well-regulated, so it's baffling how they thought future generations would be any better. By the definitions involved:

militia: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

well-regulated: "in proper working order"

The 2nd Amendment equates to only allowing military trained and qualified servicemen. The Reserves would qualify; an NRA membership would not. Irate farmers, whose only training with a firearm involved shooting at gophers and coyotes, trying to stop the gubmint from taking their guns would definitely fail the qualifications.

Yes and PI is 3.11 by law as well. Try again.

I would assume you're referring to the infamous Indiana state senate bill from 1897 in which an amateur mathematician attempted to have the state use his incorrect formulas to "square the circle", as it were. Firstly, that never became law. It was never even voted on in the Senate because after 30 minutes of laughing at the bill for being absurd, it was indefinitely tabled as a waste of time and money.

You also missed the "well regulated", and since gun clubs are opposed to regulation I'd be interested in how you weasel out of that one.

I most certainly did not miss "well regulated". The Oxford English Dictionary from the time that phrase was penned ought to help you understand why it doesn't help your argument. That can be found here: http://www.constitution.org/co...

Even without the help of the Oxford English Dictionary, one should be able to discern that a group of men who'd just used their personal firearms to overthrow their oppressive government would not mean to secure the right of the government - rather than the people - to keep and bear arms. That's absurd. One does not use firearms to overthrow an oppressive government only to turn around and insist that only the government should have firearms. It's a farcical view of history. Something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I learned how to fire a rifle at nine but I see it as a tool and not a flag or penis substitute.

Of course it's a tool. It's as much a tool as a hammer or a screwdriver or any other. However, its uses can be vastly more important. That doesn't elevate it to something beyond a tool and it should never be treated as anything but (with the obvious exception being as a collector's piece in some circumstances). However, it being a tool which can be used to secure freedom, life, and other basic human rights, the government cannot and must not deprive the people of it through force of law or otherwise.

Actually, if you go back and review the US code, other areas of the constitution, other legal writings and opinions from the people responsible for writing the constitution and this amendment, and the rest of the mountains of historical evidence, you'll find that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what you think it doesn't mean. Historically, in context, the People were considered to be the Militia (US Code). The constitution gave the US Government the right to call up from the Militia an army, etc; and for the states to maintain a militia. As discussed here: http://www.constitution.org/co... (and supported through other sources of linguistic study and writings of the period), the term "well-regulated" referred to something being in proper working order or well trained. So, we have these facts: 1. The people of the United States themselves were considered the main defensive body, and all (male) members of society of a certain age range were automatically considered members of the unorganized militia. 2. The Constitution in other parts indicated that the States, and the Federal Government, had the right/duty to call up from the militia a military force, and that the militia was to exist. 3. We know that in the vernacular of the time, "well regulated", as stated in the amendment, was understood to mean "in good working order". As such, and with laws down the line, it is, and has been, a right of the people to be armed. Now, we may argue that times have changed, etc. etc. This does not denigrate or otherwise contradict the existence and persistence of an individual right to keep and bear arms, and given the extensive laws in place that control the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms, said right is also well-regulated by a modern definition as well. I submit, further, that the fear over the private ownership of firearms is a topic which, due to the political nature of the discussion and the pressures of the media, has been blown greatly out of proportion. Such events such as Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc. are seriously dark tragedies, and heinous crimes a la ted bundy and charlie manson. They should likewise be treated not as events decrying the "sad state of our society", as they are neither systemic nor pandemic, and instead be treated as the brutal crimes that they are, the same as any other serial killer or other major criminal escapade. When placed in context with other crimes unrelated to firearms, the frequency of such events and severity of the crimes are on par with the major spree and serial killers, rapists, etc. We have simply fetishized firearms on both sides into a totem of power, rather than viewing such things as simple tools, much as we have fetishized war and conflict to such a degree as to be an unhealthy fixation.

http://www.constitution.org/co...

Does the US Constitution specifically grant the government the power to interfere in X? If not then doing so is unconstitutional, because the constitution explicitly states (repeatedly, in several different ways) that the federal government has *only* those powers granted to it by the constitution. Which is why something as simple as banning alcohol required a constitutional amendment.

Not exactly. For one thing, whether the US Constitution explicitly grants the Federal government to "interfere in X" is subject to interpretation, and has to be because the US Constitution makes a lot of common sense assumptions about how government works: that's why so many early Supreme Court rulings invoked (British) common law. The critical catch-all clause in the Constitution is Article 1 Section 8: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Even at the time of the drafting and ratification of the Constitution people debated the degree to which this clause expanded the powers of Congress.

James Madison argued in Federalist 44 that because it would be futile to attempt to anticipate all of the specific powers Congress (and the Federal government) would need for all time, the Constitution *must* grant the federal government any power necessary to fulfill the obligations the Constitution proscribes. He directly stated that trying to enumerate all of the powers the Constitution grants with explicit text would be ridiculous.

Because the question of what is "necessary and proper" is not an absolutely objective standard and the drafters of the Constitution knew this the Constitution can't be said to express explicitly enumerated powers. Even strict constructionists concede at least some of the power granted by the Constitution is implied by the intent of its text and not explicitly stated. And if you're concerned about any expansion of the Constitution's powers as being power-mongering, consider this: the Bill of Rights does not guarantee anyone in the US actually has those rights: it guarantees that the Federal Government can't intrude on them. Nothing anywhere in the text of the Constitution explicitly prohibits state governments from trampling all over, say, someone's First Amendment rights to free speech. The notion that state governments must honor the same limitations that the Constitution places upon the Federal government is another one of those power-mongering BS interpretations of the Constitution, namely the incorporation doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment. Read the 14th Amendment: nowhere in the text does it say that States must incorporate the protections of the Bill of Rights, and nowhere in the first ten amendments does it state those protections apply to State governments, only the federal government. The incorporation doctrine of the Supreme Court was created over fifty years after the passage of the 14th Amendment, and argued that the implication of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment implies State governments must incorporate the same protections as the Federal government. But try to find that in the text.

Incidentally, the eighteenth amendment which prohibited the sale of alcohol doesn't prove that banning alcohol requires a Constitutional Amendment. The opponents of alcohol pushed for a Constitutional Amendment because it was the strongest possible ban they could strive for and they felt it was achievable. Not only could they ban alcohol sales in every State without having to convince every state to ratify the amendment, once ratified the only way to overturn the ban would be to generate enough support to amend the Constitution again: the ban could not be trivially overturned the way any Congressional law can be by successive Congresses. Its also important to note history: t

Incorrect, unconstitutional laws are not valid legal laws. If a law is unconstitutional it is void from the moment it is passed, not from the moment the courts rule it so.

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.

Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.

http://www.constitution.org/us...

The executive branch is under no obligation to uphold laws that are believed to be unconstitutional

"Don't get physical/let them do as they please, then lawyer up."

I consider that bad advice, because it discourages people from exercising their right to defend themselves against unlawful arrest, a right that has been repeatedly verified and upheld in court.

Of course, as with any exercising any right, you do so at your own peril.

But the cop will straight-up murder you for that... so it might be best to let the lawyer fight that one for you.

Don't get physical/let them do as they please, then lawyer up."

I consider that bad advice, because it discourages people from exercising their right to defend themselves against unlawful arrest, a right that has been repeatedly verified and upheld in court.

Of course, as with any exercising any right, you do so at your own peril.

I think this piece of advice was more aimed about keeping you safe, not keeping you "right". If you start fighting with a cop because he's illegally searching your phone, you might end up catching a bullet. Since you were fighting with the cop, he thought his life was in danger, so the shooting could be "justified", even if the initial search was illegal.

You can be right, but if you're dead, it's really a pointless victory, isn't it? If the search is illegal, you can get it tossed in court (VERY easily), and then you can go after the police for damages. If you're dead, who cares?

The article has some good advice, and what I would consider some bad advice:

"Lock your phone"

- GOOD ADVICE! A simple passcode is your first line of defense against any physical intrusion, just like the lock on your front door.

"Repeat 'I do not consent to this search'"

- GOOD ADVICE! Not only does it establish that you deny consent, it shows the cop that you know (at least some of) your rights, which will get most of them to think twice before doing anything that might violate your rights (especially if you're taping the encounter).

Don't get physical/let them do as they please, then lawyer up."

I consider that bad advice, because it discourages people from exercising their right to defend themselves against unlawful arrest, a right that has been repeatedly verified and upheld in court.

Of course, as with any exercising any right, you do so at your own peril.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Do you ever tire of being an asshat with nothing better to do than troll Slashdot?

http://www.constitution.org/co...

Oh, yea, and you're wrong. As usual.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

        1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

        1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

        1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

        1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

        1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

        1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

Go find someone else to troll, douche.

regulated meant trained

It also meant 'came equipped with functional weapons, equipment, and with certain minimal supplies'.

A modern equivalent would be that if called you'd be required to show up for militia duty with a sighted-in semi-automatic .223 rifle with 2 loaded 30 round magazines. It might be required that the rifle be compatible with AR-15 type magazines(there are dozens of types of rifle that are compatible with them). He would also be required to have a belt and pouch suited for carrying of same.

I based this off of the 1792 Militia Act: That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

Your self-delusion and unoriginal bullshit notwithstanding, the minutes of the Constitutional Congresses say otherwise.

They meant "regulated" in exactly the same way we mean "regulated."

Constitution.org, or rather the Oxford English Dictionary, disagrees with you.

Now, if you can provide a source citation that supports your argument, I'll consider it.

Oh, and do try to keep the childish name-calling to yourself. Such nonsense has no place in discussion, and only serves to denigrate your own position.

"well regulated" means "in proper working order". It does not mean "under the organization, leadership, and orders of the government".

see Constitution

No discussion of modern money can proceed without referencing the following people? Marriner Eccles http://mikenormaneconomics.blo... Beardsley Ruml http://www.constitution.org/ta... Abba Lerner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... William Vickrey http://www.columbia.edu/dlc/wp... Wynne Godley http://www.levyinstitute.org/s... Warren Mosler http://moslereconomics.com/man... Randy Wray http://www.levyinstitute.org/p... Bill Mitchell http://bilbo.economicoutlook.n... and CH Douglas, already referenced in another comment

Basically, what it comes down to is that, you don't seem to respect the Court's authority to define words in the Constitution that are ambiguous in nature when they don't come to a conclusion that you like. Who exactly does have the right to define "Commerce" and "regulate," then?

What it comes down to is that if words don't have meaning, then the entire point of having a Constitution to limit the power of government is meaningless. Also, the meaning of those words you ascribe as vague had very clear meanings when written, and were never intended to be used as they are today.

Which is not a crime.
You could legally kill the officer involved if the situation escalated though http://www.constitution.org/us...

how about you pay for your own **** freeloaders. I worked 50hour weeks at a mail sorting facility to put myself through college. Through hard work and saving every penny I made, I paid off my loans in 3 years. Folks in this country.... always wanting someone else to pay for their crap

Govt isn't supposed to have any part in any of this http://www.constitution.org/jm...

In the perhaps foolish hope that some of you are not content in your ignorance, I recommend reading the Federalist Paper 51: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm.

You have the state govt's confused with the federal. Federal govt can only do what is authorized in the constitution, no more. States are only bound by their constitution (and by the bill of rights via 14ths incorporation).

You need to read what Madison wrote in his veto of a public works bill. Or maybe you need to read who Madison was...

http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm

No. The Constitution is exactly that, a constitution. It is a base governing document that lays out the form of government and various rights and responsibilities. It is silent on many things. It says nothing about how much money Social Security is getting next year, or the Marines, or if section 205 of the Patriot Act even exists.

Wrong on all counts. Parent post was right. Source: James Madison, father of the Constitution. http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm