Slashdot Mirror
Second Amendment Questioned
dheera writes "Attorneys in Washington, DC question the scope of the Second Amendment in the first case in nearly 70 years, citing that the right to bear arms only applies to 'a well regulated militia.' 'We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms,' said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general."
Hi. Like the man said, 'from my cold dead hands.' Guns aren't just for the military, cops, and gang-bangers -- we have 'em to make sure that our government doesn't herd us into cattle-cars, and send us off to the thermal depolymerizor en masse. We've already got Extrordinary Rendition, what's after that?
I have '666' in my NRA membership number.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
i think there's little argument that the 2nd amendment was articulated to guarantee the ability of a free people to defend themselves against and even overthrow an unjust aggressor or ruling entity.
Which is fine...except that if the ruling entity--or those on its payroll--is the only one with weapons of war, then the 2nd amendment doesn't mean diddly to the commoners. Why do we have the "bill of rights," anyhow? It certainly isn't there to protect the rights of the rulers over their subjects. The 2nd amendment is meaningless unless it guarantees the right of private citizens to "keep and carry arms wherever they [go]" (quoth the majority in Dred Scott, horrified that blacks would be able to "keep and carry arms wherever they went" if they were recognized as citizens).
The 2nd Amendment states a right (keep and bear arms) that cannot be infringed. That's it -- no infringement, period. The introductory phrase states a reason for stating this right, but "shall not be infringed" is an absolute. Note it doesn't grant the right; it considers that right, along with "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" and others to be inherent, above government powers, and says the government will not infringe on them.
It's a sign of how backwards we are in non-technological matters that our society considers it right and proper for everyone to be able to carry a device designed to kill other people.
Close, but not quite. Our society considers it right and proper for everyone to carry a device designed to defend against other people killing us.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Jerry Pournelle mentioned in a panel debate at Baycon 2006 that the colonial government provided guns and ammo to the citizens (whether they wanted it or not) in case self-defense against a common enemy was needed and that was the original definition of "a well regulated militia". If so, maybe the government today should require every 18-year-old to serve two years in the military and let them keep their gun after their service. You kill three birds with one bullet: everyone in time will have the proper training for using their gun (which should reduce accidents), be armed for self-defense (which should reduce crime) and the whole stupid 2nd Amendment will be gone. Just an idea.
Pretty sure the Department of Justice is condoning torture and crimes against humanity now. Not exactly the most credible source of opinion on such things.
The Farewell Tour II
Throughout the Constitution, the wording is very specific. When referring to individual rights, the term "The People" is used. When referring to state rights, the term "The States" is used. Unless you believe the 2nd Amendment is the ONLY EXCEPTION to this rule, it is most definitely an individual right as it says "... the right of The People ..."
If the meaning of "The People" is changed to indicate a state right, ALL our rights will be lost. Suddenly, speech, religion, assembly, redress, etc, will be State rights and everything that makes this country worthwhile will go into the shitter.
If the government can abuse a law, eventually the government will abuse a law. Maybe not right away, but a few years down the road it will happen. A good example of this is the seizing of property without due process. At first they were seizing property of convicted drug dealers. Then they started seizing the property of unconvicted drug dealers. After getting away with this obvious violation of the Constitution, they started seizing property of people with the thinnest thread of a connection to drugs, e.g. a guy had his car seized because his passenger had a joint in his possession.
-- Will program for bandwidth
The United States Department of Justice says that the 2nd amendment is an individual right
The United Stated Department of Justice also says that the Patriot Act is legal and a wonderful, necessary tool.
The Department of Justice is part of the executive branch. It's not their job to "interpret" law or the constitution. It is their job to execute the law of the land. Did you flunk middle school and high school history/civics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_power s_under_the_United_States_Constitution#Executive_p ower
Christ. Half the problem with this country is American's basic inability to understand the simplest concepts of the US government.
Please help metamoderate.
"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."
I've noticed there has been a trend to re-structure the sentence of the 2nd Ammendment and interpret it on the basis of a "well regulated militia" and then equate this to the National Guard and thus declare the 2nd Ammendment fullfilled.
This is incorrect, and is not what is said above. There are two aspects to the above statement.
1) that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free stae
2) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
What we have is a stacking of concepts. A militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Militias draw from the people, both arms and manpower. Therefore, it is necessary for the people to retain the right to bear arms or there is no means to call up a militia.
If you remove the right to bear arms from U.S. citizens then you have no means to call up and organize a militia. You will have a bunch of unarmed men unable to defend their country. This is well understood within the context of the Constitution being written. A simple test can be done to express such.
Apply both interpretations, which one would fit and fulfill the needs of the time. If we apply the traditional interpretation everything fits. However, if we apply the re-interpretation you find yourself in a place in which the American Revolution would never have existed. Let' remove all guns from ownership by the colonials. The only guns are now owned and in the hands of the British Army and the regulated militias under the British. The colonials now are completely unarmed facing both the regulars of the British Army and the militias under the British.
Clearly there is no way that this was the intention of the authors of the Constitution. And if the courts ever decided to re-interpret such ammendments it is the right of every arms bearing American and the duty of every U.S. soldier (if you've ever served you swore an oath to protect this country from powers both foreign and domestic) to kill those judges and remove that segment of government from power.
The 2nd ammendment is our assurety against tyranny. It is the last and final line in our "checks and balances" within the government.
- Saj
Be that as it may, "the people" is never used in the bill of rights to refer to citizens collectively
It isn't? The "people" in the Fourth Amendment has been construed by the US Supreme Court to mean the class lawfully and voluntarily in the US and part of the national community. US v. Verdugo-Urquidez. I have no idea who the Framers would be referring to as "the people" if not the citizens of the United States.
It says something of the grandparent's personal character that when he sees a gun he thinks, "that's for killing" as opposed to "that's for safeguarding."
You're right, it shows he's smarter than the average person, because he's able to understand that an object can have more than one function.
By definition, if you have two guys with guns, and one is defending himself, the other one is trying to kill him.
If everyone was running around only using guns to defend themselves, we wouldn't need guns to defend ourselves now, would we?
paintball
If they disallow gun ownership I'll move to the country where it's allowed. You see, lack of gun ownership is very convenient if you want to build a police state. You can ram through unruly crowds on a tank, completely invincible. If, on the other hand, people have guns - persons of power will feel a lot less comfortable after committing large scale atrocities against their own people. This applies both locally and on a federal level. Just because there can be a dude with a sniper rifle sitting on the roof.
As far as I'm concerned, guns are the only remaining guarantee of democratic rights that citizens of this country still have. Guns are a great equalizer of power between those in power and those without.
It should be no shock that D.C. is still one of the most violent cities in the U.S. (#2 or #3, the last I checked). The murder rate drops by a factor of 10 when you cross the Potomac River into Virginia (still in metropolitan Washington; it gets even lower further away) where there is no gun ban.
What are you trying to say?
It seems like you are trying to say that the crime rate would be lower if nobody had guns. If that is what you are trying to say, either you are intentionally putting forth a bad argument, or you're stupid.
We have two sets of data: Data when it was legal to own handguns on both sides of the river, and data when it was legal to own a gun on only the low-crime side of the river.
The high-crime side of the river had high crime in both circumstances. At best, with the data you're using in your argument, you can argue that taking away legal handguns didn't make a difference.
That's the big problem with the gun debate. There are very few people involved capable of a rational argument. They know what side they are on, and emotionally, irrationally argue in support of their position, summarily dismissing any information that does not help their cause, while seizing on any bit that seems to support it, no matter how flawed.
paintball
What really angers me about the 'need firearms to protect us from the government' people is that they don't understand what they are really saying. "We need guns so the government doesn't take away our rights" they say.
That's saying that you don't have to comply with the will over the democratically elected government. It's saying that if you don't like the law, yu're going to become a terrorist. That you would rather just become a terrorist than elect people who are going to protect your rights in the first place.
The people who scream bloody murder about the government taking away the guns they need to protect their rights from the government tend to the VERY SAME PEOPLE who ELECT OFFICIALS WHO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS!
How many times have you heard someone say "We need guns to protect our rights!" and then say "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear!"
How about instead of letting people say "Elect me, and I won't take away your guns!", you elect people who say "Elect me, and I'll repeal the Patriot Act!"
People who argue that they need guns to protect their rights from the government are just gun nuts. The 'protect us from the government' argument is a red herring. If their RIGHTS were really what is important to them, they'd vote for people who wanted to protect their rights instead of people who wanted to protect their guns.
But that's not what happens. Search you without a warrant? Listen in to your phone calls? Arrest and detain you, even if you're a US citizen, without access to courts or a lawyer? Torture people? Sure, we'll reelect that guy, as long as he promises we can keep our guns!
Using the right to bear arms to protect your rights is useless if you're willing to trade away all your other rights just to keep your gun. Then what are you protecting?
paintball
I guess if you live where everybody is crazy and armed you would need a gun. I give thanks I do not live in such a place.
... That's where South America starts
PenGun
The Peace Arch
Just like, if torture worked (which it doesn't), I would not support torture.
Some folks think safety is more important than liberty. I disagree with them. I think that liberty is more important than safety, although I don't even agree that it has to be one or the other.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Thank you for making this point.
We could all roll around in bubbles with cameras recording our every move, and I'm sure that would make this a safer society, but that would be...horrible.
Not at all. You frequently cite cases from other circuits. Lower courts are not bound by it as precedent, but they are taken into consideration by the judge.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Don't forget that if that passes, we will be able to deduct all expenses incurred while potentially making those earnings including monthly fees, ISP costs, electricity costs, cost of the game, hardware, "office" space, training costs in terms of cable bill for receiving G4, plasma TV cost, etc. By treating gaming as an independent "business" they're gonna be promoting a whole lot of deductions that wouldn't otherwise be deductible. Heck ... I hope they go ahead and do it ... I'm looking to claiming my gaming "losses".
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Nerds see themselves as being part of an enlightened and well established subculture. To ignore every discussion which transcends the traditionally geeky however, would be paramount to calling that subculture stupid, out of touch with the world that influences their lives, in a word, unenlightened.
It is obvious from the popularity of /. articles concerning rights, freedom, politics, and how we've been Bushywhacked for the last six years, implies that nerds care deeply about these issues. It is easy for the enlightened to see that we live in a dangerous world: from terrorism to oppression, from bi0 weapons to outsourcing IT to India, from global warming to bad presidents, surveillance to CowboyNeal's evil twin.
The point is this: Nerds are smart, and when thy looked up from their code and saw the desperation of the world's people, they saw a world that needed their comments on Slashdot.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
That's the big problem with the gun debate. There are very few people involved capable of a rational argument. They know what side they are on, and emotionally, irrationally argue in support of their position, summarily dismissing any information that does not help their cause, while seizing on any bit that seems to support it, no matter how flawed.
There are two issues:
A. Does a government restriction on gun ownership, trade, etc. reduce violence?
B. Is the ability to own, carry, trade, manufacture, modify, and transport firearms an important right?
Not surprisingly, this makes for 3 types of people:
(1) People who don't care much about (A), and want government bans or restrictions.
(2) People who don't care much about (A), and don't want government bans or restrictions.
(3) People who can be swayed by (A).
I am the second type of person. I think these rights are important, and I am willing to pay the costs in terms of risk, if increased risk exists.
However, I am rational enough to realize that question (A) is an empirical one, and the answer is different in different situations. I personally think that in the U.S., (A) is false overall. However, even if results show that (A) is true, I would not support bans or restrictions.
I also don't buy for a second the idea that the Second Amendment is meant for anyone other than private citizens. The Second Amendment says "the right of the people" not "the right of the militia". The Constitution is very important, and if you value the other rights listed, you will not dilute the Second Amendment right. If you feel strongly against it, the only way to change it without destroying the Constitution is to Amend the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment. I'd rather that happened than giving judges the power to re-interpret the Constitution to say whatever they want it to say.
The Second Amendment is actually written more strongly than the First. The First Amendment merely prohibits Congress, and only with the 14th does it really have as much power as it does.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Those "virtual" assets are actually worth something. Virtual weapons aren't actually weapons.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
In my mind, this safety means:
1. Safety from fellow citizens, and
2. Safety from the government.
Neither of those are, at their heart, rights, nor are either of those the basis for a right. Both of those are still empirical questions, and nothing more. Does freedom of speech increase or decrease the incidence of spontaneous combustion? It doesn't matter, freedom of speech is a right.
The basis for the right to bear arms is the right to defend yourself. If you depend on the government for all of your safety, then the rest of your rights are meaningless. Consider this: if the government doesn't like you, and you depend on the government for your safety, all they have to do is stop making you safe from people that can harm you. They may release people from prison, or not put someone in prison that they should. Or they just might make it a well-known fact that they will not protect you, and wait for non-governmental citizens to have their way with you.
Think if you're a black person in the deep south a few decades ago. Perhaps everyone knows that the government won't arrest someone for hurting or stealing from black people. It's a form of passive punishment, and it's very real. It's happened in a million forms throughout history, and the founders knew that. It's a way of passing the buck saying "we didn't kill him" when they just didn't provide the protections necessary such that he wouldn't be killed.
You can't stop all forms of passive punishment by governments, but allowing citizens to defend themselves closes an important loophole.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
If you want to compare licensing guns to licensing cars, then here is a good point.
The government only licenses cars and drivers for use on public roads. I can go out and buy any vehicle I want, and as long as I only use it on private property, the government doesn't care. I don't need brake lights, airbags or anything else the government requires, as long as I only use the vehicle on private property. It is once I take it onto public roads that the government cares.
This should be true for guns as well. What I do on my private property on my business, as long as I don't endanger people around me. So in a residential neighborhood I should be able to keep any firearm I like, but not discharge them (as it poses a danger to those around me). However, if I am out in the middle of nowhere (again on private property) I should be able to discharge any firearm I like. However, if I want to carry a loaded weapon with me in public, the state government should be able.
In my state this is true. If I wanted to carry a concealed handgun, I would have to pass a background check, go through a safety course and pass a test. In addition, once I was issued a license I would be subject to a stricter set of rules when carrying the weapon.
1. If the U.S. founders and revolutionary army had put their fate in the hands of protest songs and peaceful sit-ins rather than armed rebellion, we might very well today still be paying our taxes to the U.K.
2. Iraq is a vivid demonstration of the effectiveness of armed citizen resistance. The Iraqi people are better armed than us.
I strongly support liberal social programs, but when it comes to certain essential personal freedoms I find they are hypocritical cowards.
Western liberals have developed a false sense of security through years of living under impotent administrations permitting open dissent and demonstration. They take this for granted, believing their disssent and peaceful demonstration have secured their rights.
In reality, we are always one election cycle away from tyranny.
Bush is no tyrant (*shock*, but hey, this is Slashdot). In fact he's downright moderate compared to some past wartime administrations. But if you doubt the difference a single election cycle can make, look no further than the 2000 elections. Had a statewide recount been conducted in Florida - had all the votes been counted - the world today would be a very different place.
Think long and hard before you give up the guaranteer of your liberty. Once you have, it is too late.
I call BS. In this year's rankings, DC is #19, behind cities like Memphis, Trenton, and Kansas City. DC has improved greatly since the handgun ban was passed.
Yeah, and before women got the vote we didn't have the threat of nuclear war.
Logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc
Just because one thing happens after another thing does not mean the second thing was caused by the first.
Dear poster,
Currently, a bunch of poor, under-educated fighters are beating the U.S. military using propane tanks, styrofoam, gasoline, and an abudnant supply of military ordinance. Most of them are not residents of the country they are doing this in; they are operatives from foreign countries who have been trained on how to establish support from the locals.
One of their greatest weaknesses is that despite the fact that the country they operate in was, until recently, the 4th most heavily armed country in the world, they have difficulty in aquiring military-grade munitions. Thankfully, they are turning more and more to homemade explosives, indicating that the supply of military-grade is dwindling. I say thankfully because this is my second tour, and it indicates that my third will not be as violent as the first two.
If you think the U.S. military is invincible you are wrong. If you think that it would be very very hard to beat without munitions, you would be right. Simply choose between legal posession of firearms (which is a habit less dangerous than legal posession of cars, swimming pools, or alcohol) versus the ability of your government to oppress you at any time with no recourse of any kind.
Thanks,
A US Servicemember
The hand written version does, the version ratified by the states does not. If the comma is to be taken as intended, then the militias have the right to bear arms, but common people don't. If the law is to be taken as written when ratified, then the common people do have the right to bear arms.
There is solid precident and writing to support either cause but I think it worth considering two pertinant facts.
- The democratic rule rose out of a fight against tyranny and the rights were to protect the people from the same problems the drafters of the bill of rights had experienced. The writers were probably very concerned to make sure that the common people always would have a way to fight the government should it exhibit symptoms of tyranny.
- The right to bear arms is grouped with other civil liberties and as such, if taken in context, can only be associated with the rights of the common man.
Funny, AC parent considers the topic to be intended as written and thus not correctly placed. The topic at hand is a debate on whether the amendment should be taken as written or not.B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
You would have discovered the following:
There are two types of militia, civil milita (unorganized civilians bearing own arms) and state milita (national guard, state troopers, standing forces, whatever is organized for and paid (and bearing arms owned) by the state).
Well regulated meant only one, and possibly two things. You are reading "regulated" as in today's "regulations".
Regulated, in the 1787 terminology, refers to only one thing. "Disciplined and officered." No joke, a militia with a set structure, even if self organized, is a "well regulated militia". The irony is that the term can also be read to mean "well equiped, trained and supplied."
The ratification misdeeds do not even enter into it.
What I find ironic, is that you are all begging for scraps from the tables of lords and masters with loyalties to anyone but you. Washington DC is a crime capital under a declared "state of crime emergency" since July or August of 2006 (don't remember the exact date). And it isn't just guns, some british guy got knifed and killed in his own driveway, which makes the "protect yourself by staying home" or "don't go into the dangerous parts of DC after dark" completely idiotic.
Since most of you are socialist "democrats" or so called "liberals" (my how that term stopped meaning what it used to mean in Jefferson's day), perhaps this example comes closest to your hearts. Some time ago, in their home in Germantown (rich part of Wash, DC) Theresa Heinz Kerry got ROBBED while outside of their home. Yep, John Kerry's wife... the ketchup girl. Humorously, the news barely touched on it, presumably for fear that the properties there would stop soaring in price, and also that the DC 30year gun ban would go bust if even the big antigunners are being robbed at screwdriver point (making the gunban worthless, what next, piece of rock and treebranch ban?)
(Frankly, I didn't know there were any "safe" zones in that DC, I've watched drug deals and "hot merchandise" deals, going on within plain sight of police squad cars (and the cops within them), and it wasn't a sting, nobody got busted AND there were no headlines or sirens/lights the whole day I was there. I left severely perturbed by that sight. I called the cops about it, and got the run around, they took my statement and basically blew me off. Guess if shots weren't fired, or blood spilled, it wasn't worth their time, though how would "shots be fired" in a gun ban city?)
However, you are correct, the "founders" were two separate camps which are mistaught in history class, one was the rich fascistic overlords known as the "federalists" (a hijacking of the term that has stuck) and the other, the unprepared, populist/agrarian/Jeffersonian group, lead by the very vocal Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, were the ANTI Federalists (of whom you may hear little or nothing in high school history and if you are fortunate, a tad smidgen from a libertarian professor in college, IF you are lucky). James Madison watered down the actual text, but the states all ratified the text THEY felt was necessary. Do some research while the National Archives are still available to the public. It might open everyone's eyes, especially since we're geeks, we're supposed to be libertarians at heart, seeking knowledge and truth, instead of being gimme gimme beggars and weaklings.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Perhaps consider the intentions of the framers. Thomas Jefferson said that "a little revolution now and then is a good thing", and the "shot heard 'round the world" was in defense of a private cache of arms about to be confiscated by the British.
Jefferson, at least, saw revolution as another check against the government and weapons as a way to enable the citizenry to do this.
DATABASE WOW WOW
The US constitution was a best-effort. It was not written by god on a tablet. It's authors said it was deeply flawed and they hoped it would last 20 years. It needs an over-haul.
Because smart people can't agree on even the most basic intentions of the constitution's authors. Do people have a right to arms or not? What kinds of arms? It there a right to privacy or not? Even from the government? It is NOT CLEAR. And it won't EVER get any clearer.
Some people say that is the beauty of the document, it's flexibility and ability to be reinterpreted.
I say bullshit. I don't want to hear about *implied* rights. Spell it out clearly, in contemporary english, with no spin. We don't live in the dark ages, we can examine the ideas of the past and use what is useful.
I think we need to update the language of the constitution. Maybe we need a constitutional convention every 10 or 20 years as Jefferson suggested, to carefully clarify the language. Baby steps.
And do we want to add new rights? Should there be a right to euthanasia, a basic job, basic health care, an abortion, basic shelter, a basic education, porn? How about freedom FROM religion? We seem to *effectively* have some of these rights, but not literally. Why not?
Would someone please get Richard Stallman on this? And Linus Tovalds?
People kill. Guns hold NO responsibility. Neither does a kitchen knife hold guilt if some criminal breaks into your home and kills you with it. The criminal is too often absolved of guilt, with it being transfered to the item/weapon.
Look at London. Now they got themselves a "knife amnesty", because criminals began using knives (naturally silenced, without need for sound suppressors). What is next? Tree branches and rocks are "causing" crushing blows to back of skulls? Steel pipe amnesty?
If you want to see, go to a gun show. Perfect example of well behaved people, go to self regulated gun ranges, I've been to them all to experience it. Strange that nobody dies, and the few accidents are some idiot who didn't bother to study on the proper usage of the gear he/she is handling.
While I am not a member of the "gungho" culture, I must say I admire the ones that practice what they preach within that culture (they carry, they're safe, they're responsible, and very few have had "accidents" or committed a crime with them... and worth learning from... unlike the geeks of today, who let those in power tell them what to use, and how to use it, including their bodies.)
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Yeah, you aussies left yourselves disarmed. My great grandparents did that, and 10 years later they died at the hands of communists. I leave it to you, your head is in your hands, until you give it to the state, for they will gladly chop it off for profit.
By the way, I watch the gun news, since its an interesting "blindness" of our media as well as YOURS. They report "murders" like our "sudden school shooting spree" right before elections (interesting coincidence isn't it?) and it stopped as soon as democrats got elected.
Get serious fella, I checked the records of both men who did the "shootings" that lead to Rebecca Peters helping you ban your guns. They were both people who should've been behind bars, one even had a pages long record... but instead of prison, he was loose. Why?
I've been asking this question for ages. I ended up starting to read the NRA news, because at least they did research on the part you don't hear in the actual news "media". You know, that part where they searched the RECORDS of the criminals comitting CRIMES, and asking Why were they not behind bars where they belonged?!
I'm sure the gun ban freaks would love to ask THAT question. Otherwise expect to die by knife, and expect the news NOT to mention it... after all, it would rescind the gun bans.
But keep alive that socialist mentality. That way those of us who produce, have to produce for you people too. And I'm sick and tired of writing a check to feed you.
Maybe I'll quit at suck at the tit as well.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler