Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

In reply to the discussion: Who gets free speech? [View all]
 

needledriver

(836 posts)
5. The Supreme Court disagrees with you:
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 10:00 PM
Oct 2012

In the Heller decision, The Supreme Court held:

(1) 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. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Who gets free speech? [View all] needledriver Sep 2012 OP
Are you trying to end discussion of da militia clause in one swift blow? Tsk-tsk.nt Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #1
Not comparable. COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #2
Does it reasonably follow from the structure of 2A that the only purpose of RKBA petronius Oct 2012 #3
Not a question of whether it "reasonably COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #4
The Supreme Court disagrees with you: needledriver Oct 2012 #5
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #26
And yet that has never been the way the Second Amendment has been interpreted (by the Supreme Court) TPaine7 Oct 2012 #6
Interesting, thanks. I'll have to do some more reading... (nt) petronius Oct 2012 #8
The purpose and scope... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #10
In pari materia is used to try and resolve an COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #18
In pari materia discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #19
Just because opinions differ does not COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #23
I don't answer questions twice. discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #27
Hard to point out ambiguity when there isn't any. COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #30
Near impossible to overcome a prejudice n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #31
In considering your opinion... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #37
The entire purpose of applying COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #38
Your whole argument is based on a misreading of the Second Amendment. TPaine7 Oct 2012 #21
You can try and run through semantic circles COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #24
You have it exactly backwards. TPaine7 Oct 2012 #32
It's called a Whereas. AtheistCrusader Oct 2012 #11
Well, for starters - COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #12
I didn't say the first amendment. AtheistCrusader Oct 2012 #14
I was referring to the hypothetical language you COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #16
It's a substitution. AtheistCrusader Oct 2012 #34
The prefatory clause is quite similar to the current use of whereas, as you say. TPaine7 Oct 2012 #33
According to... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #9
Where do you get that from the language of COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #13
The exact language: discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #15
Where do you get the idea that RKBA is COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #17
Your claim... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #20
You are assuming that such a non-enumerated COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #25
From history... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #28
British Common Law for starters - the Bill of Rights from 1689 hack89 Oct 2012 #29
Actually it is quite comparable. In fact, a very close analogue exists from that timeframe. TPaine7 Oct 2012 #22
I think it's obvious 4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #7
Well needledriver, I think there is nothing left of the "Militia" arguments made in this thread. TPaine7 Oct 2012 #35
Who gets free speech? Oneka Oct 2012 #36
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Who gets free speech?»Reply #5