Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

liberals carry guns?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 04:07 AM
Original message
liberals carry guns?
Try this link; www.liberalswithguns.com/

for some truth about guns for a change.

Have a great day.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 04:11 AM
Response to Original message
1. Good website!
Thanks, Mark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 04:12 AM
Response to Original message
2. Hell yeah we're packin' heat...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyclezealot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 04:21 AM
Response to Original message
3. Wonder what polls would say
about the stands of the various political groupings. / Supporters of the Second Amendment. It's like coercion and some faith based belief system. You must believe or else. For a couple years we have the privilege of living overseas for awhile. / We do not miss the Second Amendment one iota. How odd it is to walk about city parks in the middle of the night. Without fear. / Odd, even among the right overseas, they don't support gun rights , either. Just listen to American news reports and guns makes the right scared sh!tl@ss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
13. hmm...
you probably realize that there are many other forms of violent crime that do not require use of a gun, right?

there is a park in the bad area of my town where a couple of my friends were mugged at "crowbar point" (aka a group of youths with crowbars and axes)...when i walk down streets at night i do not fear getting shot- i fear getting assaulted or stabbed- because both are much more common than getting shot.

you do not need a firearm to terrorize or kill a person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dairydog91 Donating Member (520 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
65. Location, location, location...
Edited on Mon Oct-13-08 07:10 PM by dairydog91
And I live in a US state with shall-issue CCW permits, and I was never afraid to walk through the park at night. On the flip side, there are areas of Europe where guns are banned and I wouldn't walk through their local park without an entire football team as escort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chknltl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 04:27 AM
Response to Original message
4. Mike Malloy is a well armed liberal. I am not. To each their own.
Edited on Wed May-28-08 04:48 AM by chknltl
I confess to being offended by this statement on this link's front page:

"The Constitution of the United States guarantees to you the right to bear arms...You have the unquestioned right, under the law, to defend your life and protect the sanctity of your fireside. Failing in either, you are a coward and a craven and undeserving of the name of man." -- Eugene V. Debs

Was Ghandi a man? Is Nelson Mandella a man? If you believe in him, was Jesus a man? Is following in the footsteps of any of these three somehow undeserving of being called a man? I do not think that I am a coward for not wanting to own a gun.... I stand up in front of a urinal, have since a little after I learned how to walk. That's man enough for me!

nuff said
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyclezealot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 04:52 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I respect Eugene V. Debs.
Edited on Wed May-28-08 04:58 AM by cyclezealot
Yet he was somewhat of a revolutionary. A union organizer. In times of such unrest and an uncivilized state of affairs , one need protect themselves. Need we always live in such a state of chaos. Some societies seem to evolve out of the morass. / Chiti. check out new threads. Old Mark is really on a rant. Which is his right. Go to it old mark. Four gun threads posted about gun rights. / What offends many who favor gun control, laws such as passed by Marietta, Ga. years ago. Requiring all to buy guns and have them as standard equipment in each and every home. / Why is it. It seems by many gun rights people/ if you don't agree ; they suffer from short fuses? / Don't we all believe in the First Amendment. ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chknltl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 05:25 AM
Response to Reply #5
6.  Somewhat of an ass for his statement. imo
This is America, that means I have the right to choose my own path within the law. If I called ANYONE who chooses a legal path which differs from my own, less than a man for choosing their path, then I too would be an ass!
nuff said
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyclezealot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 05:31 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. RE. Debs.
It was a different era. Over 100 years ago. The 1880's were one of America's most violent era. / When you are up against the lawless corporate owned security guards known as the Pinkertons, reason seems secondary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chknltl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I had no idea who authored those words.That was then, this is now.
I take no issue with statements made from the past, in this case it appears to me that the author of that web-page is advocating this philosophy....if so then I am in disagreement with this philosophy for the very reasons I have made clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyclezealot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. trying to excuse the thinking of the era
agreed. civilization should advance over the course of 130 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. Uhh.....
Edited on Wed May-28-08 07:36 AM by virginia mountainman
Was Ghandi a man? Is Nelson Mandella a man? If you believe in him, was Jesus a man? Is following in the footsteps of any of these three somehow undeserving of being called a man? I do not think that I am a coward for not wanting to own a gun.... I stand up in front of a urinal, have since a little after I learned how to walk. That's man enough for me!


Uh, One moment please... You can be a very non-violent person, and STILL defend yourself and family from direct, mortal attack. It is a coward, who has no means, or plans to defend himself, or worse, those that depend on him, to defend them, like his wife, or children, from emanate bodily harm.

‘‘Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.’’

— Mahatma Ghandi, "Gandhi, An Autobiography", page 446

If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.
-- The Dalai Lama

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. ---Jesus to his disciples in Luke 22:36

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. American pacifists don't understand Gandhi's practicality (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chknltl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. UHHHH: So I should live WHOSE life in America?
Isn't that good enough? OBVIOUSLY that is my point. Is there a part of this point you don't get?
Thank you ahead of time for the respect on that particular point.....I hope.

Oh and:

Ghandhi: I was not advocating the removal of guns from anyone (or in your example EVERYONE) else with my point. I was advocating only my right to NOT own one should I so choose and to not be called names or judged for my decision. I believe that Ghandi would have backed me up on this point. Neither of us would have been less of a man for this.

Dali Lama: Doesn't appear by this statement that the Dalai Lama is advocating that everyone needs to go out and buy a gun for defense. Maybe the NRA could pin him down better on that one, Lord knows what a feather in their cap HIS advocacy would be. I suspect that he again would not think me less of a man for choosing not to own a gun.

Jesus: WTF does THAT have with my desire to own or not own a gun? NOTHING. Sword, sure...as a matter of fact I DO own a short sword. I think it looks cool!

Back to my point, I am offended when anyone calls me names for choosing to live my life within the laws of America however I see fit! If I want to purchase a gun, I should be able to do so and nobody should judge me for my doing that. If I should choose not to purchase a gun then nobody should be judging me for doing that either.

FAIR ENOUGH????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #19
35. Actually...
I really don't care if you chose to own a gun or not.

It is YOUR Choice. Unlike many Republicans, like Sara Brady, Paul Hemlick,<--SP and Bloomberg. I will not force my views on anyone. I expect the same in return.

Odds are, if we sat down at a restaurant and had a meal together, you would probably find that we agree much more than any disagree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chknltl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Then we can agree there...likely lotsa other places as well too.
I get along just fine with folks. When I get lumped into the position of being less of a man for:________ fill in the blank. That's when I'll get offended. The use of that statement in that link was offensive to me. I merely pointed out why I was offended and got......, well this is why I don't normally hang out here in this forum. The attitude that one is either like us or the 'enemy/idiot/lunatic/pacifist-fringe' is far too prevalent here. That statement in that link is a prime example of this mentality. I AM AN AMERICAN CITIZEN....I GET TO MAKE MY CHOICES TOO and I am no coward, unwilling to defend my choices either.

Time to take my leave of this forum. It matters not what similarities I may have with folks here....what matters to me is the gulf created by those who would prefer I thought like them, by those who would label me with negatives because I choose to travel down a different path. For what it is worth, I am not gay but I find less friction aimed at me in the GLBT forum on those rare occasions I respond to one of their threads. From now on I'll remember to just stay away from this forum when I see it. I mean nobody here ill will, I just don't belong here PERIOD. Y'all have a nice day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #19
39. Some notes on Gandhi...
"No matter how weak a person is in body, if it is a shame to flee, he will stand his ground and die at his post. This would be non-violence and bravery. No matter how weak he is, he will use what strength he has in inflicting injury on his opponent, and die in the attempt. This is bravery, but not non-violence. If, when his duty is to face danger, he flees, it is cowardice." (The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, R. K. Prabhu and U. R. Rao, Oxford Univ. Press, London, 1945)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. damn, eh?
Edited on Wed May-28-08 05:40 PM by iverglas

It is a coward, who has no means, or plans to defend himself, or worse, those that depend on him, to defend them, like his wife, or children, from emanate {sic} bodily harm.

If you could only get more of the little ladies to git their own gunz, just think how much easier life would be.

Why exactly would someone's wife depend on him to protect her? Because she's a useless appendage good only for cooking, cleaning and screwing? How 'bout those kiddies? She can pump 'em out but then has no responsibility for protecting them?

Such a lot of weird dissonance hereabouts. All us girls need to have our own gunz, and yet the big reason why the menz got to have 'em is to do the man thing and protect us girls ... from the other menz ...



And sigh, once again I'll just point out that Gandhi referred to A NATION, not a bunch of lone yahoos.



typo fixed ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #21
34. My little lady is well taken care off..
Here is what SHE, prefers for defence of home, and family. We are each others "back up" when trouble calls.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #21
36. A couple of answers.
Maybe she is physically disabled. Maybe she is untrained in dealing with an armed threat. I believe you are projecting a little bit on the second question.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
61. Here's one from "Ghandi (sic):"
"Taking life may be a duty... Suppose a man runs amuck and goes furiously about, sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares to capture him alive. Anyone who despatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man." -- All Men Are Brothers, comp. and ed. by Krishna Kripalani, Navajivan Trust, 1960.

More to the point:

"I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence."

and:

"No matter how weak a person is in body, if it is a shame to flee, he will stand his ground and die at his post. This would be non-violence and bravery. No matter how weak he is, he will use what strength he has in inflicting injury on his opponent, and die in the attempt. This is bravery, but not non-violence. If, when his duty is to face danger, he flees, it is cowardice."

You probably do not want to hear what life-long socialist George Orwell has to say. You can look it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
11. "From the Oleg Volk Collection"

Damn, ya gotta love a liberal.

I just don't think that website owner really does love "liberals", though ...

Although some of Eleanor Roosevelt's views — such as her hopes for the United Nations — were mistaken ...


Anyhow, once again ... how often do we have to be subjected to this crap?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x69674

The site is owned by DU member Van23, who does not have a public profile.

I seem to recall he might have been present here under a different name at one time, and no longer be.

If you're fascinated by the interminable internecine squabbling of latter-day Trotskyists, do read up on "Socialist Alternative", apparently Van's home outfit. Why would a Trot call himself a liberal??

Ah ... maybe to confused dim-witted liberals ...
While this site uses terms such as "liberal," "left", "socialist" and "progressive" almost interchangeably, it must be stated that there are many different opinions that constitute the umbrella term "the Left." Liberals want a kinder, gentler capitalism. Marxists want to abolish it. Liberals favor a foreign policy conducted through the United Nations. Socialists want the United States out of both the internal affairs of other countries and the United Nations. {er .. no, we don't} However, there is one thing Second Amendment liberals and leftists agree on. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens leaves us at the mercy of both criminals and the federal government. Second Amendment liberals and leftists also realize that crime is caused by the deep-seated economic and social injustices inherent in the capitalist system. Simply taking guns away from citizens constitutes a mere cosmetic change that will not solve these systemic problems.


Once again with the strange bedfellows.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Since you mentioned Eleanor, didn't she pack? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. that will have been the point of what I quoted


Eleanor Roosevelt was all wet when it came to the United Nations -- one of the peaks of "liberal" accomplishment in the 20th century -- but she owned firearms so she can be a gunhead icon.

Somehow, I don't think she'd be flattered.

And somehow, I don't think those people are "liberal", or progressive, or d/Democratic. I don't even think they're Trots.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #15
44. She owned and carried a large revolver
and often had it on the seat or her car when she was traveling.
TR taught her to shoot, and she really enjoyed it, and evidently was a good shot.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
14. Don't forget Gun-toting Liberals...
http://guntotingliberal.com/

Excellent up-to-date discussions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
17. Bottom line,
does fidelity to a political identity matter as much as right and wrong?

As the Republicans love to remind us, the Democratic party once stood solidly against civil rights and the dismantling of Jim Crow. Would it have been better to stand with the party and against justice, or to work for change?

People have a right to the means to defend themselves. Furthermore, the right is enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Those who deny the right to arms would be more respectable if they made an honest, frontal assault on it by attempting to amend the Constitution. Trying to pretend it says something else is a contemptible approach. And wearing a given political label doesn't change that one whit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. pretending


That's a good one.

Trying to pretend that "bear arms" does not refer to carrying weapons as part of a collective enterprise -- its meaning at its origins, its meaning at the time of your second amendment, and its meaning today, in fact -- is one of the best tricks of the gunhead brigade.

"Bear arms" really just did not mean "wander the streets festooned in firearms all by one's lonesome" 250 years ago, and still doesn't.

You know it, I know it, we know it, they know it.

Some people really do seem to think they invented the wheel ...

http://www.constitution.org/eng/assizarm.htm

Assize of Arms
1181

1. Let every holder of a knight's fee have a hauberk, a helmet, a shield and a lance. And let every knight have as many hauberks, helmets, shields and lances, as he has knight's fees in his demise.

2. Also, let every free layman, who holds chattals or rent to the value of 16 marks, have hauberk, a helmet, a shield, and a lance. Also, let every free layman who holds chattals or rent worth 10 marks have an aubergel and a headpiece of iron and a lance....

4. Moreover, let each and every one of them swear before the feast of St. Hilary he will possess these arms and will bear allegiance to the lord king, Henry, namely the son of empress Maud, and that he will bear these arms in his service according to his order and in allegiance to the lord king and his realm..."


It's your history, you know.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. A good many Constitutional lawyers disagree with you.
A good number agree with you too though. My point is that pretending that either side has a less than defendable position is disingenuous. Clearly you don't think our argument is as defendable, but we think yours isn't. This is pointless though because the Supreme Court is about to decide who's position is more defendable at this time. Moreover I don't believe I have ever seen a pro-gun person here suggest that everyone should be able to walk the streets with multiple firearms of their choice.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. who cares what any "pro-gun person" says?
Edited on Wed May-28-08 05:46 PM by iverglas
I don't believe I have ever seen a pro-gun person here suggest that everyone should be able to walk the streets with multiple firearms of their choice.

If they didn't, that would just make them vile advocates of rights violations, as far as I can tell. Why would their notions about how someobody else should exercise his/her rights matter? I can't ever figure that one out.

It's just their opinion. And who cares?


Clearly you don't think our argument is as defendable, but we think yours isn't.

Clearly, you don't even know what mine is. And clearly, yours is as hokey as the day is long.



more typos ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. I'm pretty sure you just argued it as a collective right.
I could be wrong but that's what you seemed to be arguing. According to your argument then we shouldn't care at all what your opinion is about people carrying guns into restaurants or as you so often say about someone promenading around in public with guns. Who cares it's just your opinion? Who cares if you are frightened? Who cares if you feel less secure? It's just your opinion. Again this is your argument not mine. I would have more respect for other people than that, if I was going to carry a gun I would carry it concealed so as to not worry the faint of heart. While you are at it though could you tell me what my opinion on the 2nd Amendment is? Since you seem to know. I don't want it to be hokey after all, but wait that would just be your opinion that according to you doesn't matter.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. you're wrong


I'm pretty sure you just argued it as a collective right.

But I'm not about to type 20 paragraphs of explanation for the latest johnny come lately.

Here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=143854&mesg_id=143922
For starters.


According to your argument then we shouldn't care at all what your opinion is about people carrying guns into restaurants or as you so often say about someone promenading around in public with guns.

Nope. Not according to my argument.

I've never advanced my argument as being determinative of anything.

My argument about what would be good public policy is a completely different matter from someone's assertion regarding what a provision in a constitution means.


Who cares it's just your opinion?

Absolutely. Of course, people who care about things like democracy and rights and freedoms care what other people's opinions about public policies are, because public policy making in a democracy necessarily calls for honest, informed public discussion.


Who cares if you are frightened?

I dunno. Who cares if you beat your dog?

If I were frightened, that would be an emotion, not an opinion; just so's you know.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. I don't seem to be.
This is from your link.

Myself, I've always said that it's pretty obvious that the right actually being stated in the 2nd amendment is the collective right of self-determination

You also wrote, "Of course, people who care about things like democracy and rights and freedoms care what other people's opinions about public policies are, because public policy making in a democracy necessarily calls for honest, informed public discussion."

But in the earlier post you said that you weren't interested in what any pro- gun person had to say. So does that mean you don't care about things like democracy and rights and freedoms?


I guess we shouldn't base public policy on opinion or emotion. I personally think we should base policy on fact. I'll let the Supreme Court decide what is obvious about the 2nd Amendment, not that I doubt your intelligence in the matter but I do think you are slightly biased.

David


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. honest discourse ... too much to expect


This is from your link.
Myself, I've always said that it's pretty obvious that the right actually being stated in the 2nd amendment is the collective right of self-determination


And now for what I actually said. You couldn't even bring yourself to quote one complete sentence of it.

Myself, I've always said that it's pretty obvious that the right actually being stated in the 2nd amendment is the collective right of self-determination, to which having a secure and free state is generally essential. And that the ability of individuals to possess arms was seen as just as necessary to the exercise of that collective right as the ability of individuals to cast votes is to another aspect of the right of self-determination: a people choosing its own government.

The individual right to vote does not entitle individuals to cast ballots willy nilly, whenever a person or a group of people happens to want to. Individuals vote in elections, on the terms and conditions decided by the collectivity.

Seems to me that the right of individuals to possess firearms in order that the group can exercise its collective right to self-determination by ensuring the security of the free state comprised by the group is a right for which the conditions of exercise can just as properly be decided by the collectivity.

That doesn't mean that I don't think that individuals have a right to possess firearms for other purposes. I do, just as I think individuals have a right to possess socks and pizza. That's called liberty. But the exercise of that right is just as subject to restrictions, where they are needed in order to protect an overriding public interest, as any other right is.


I think there is an individual right to possess firearms that has absolutely nothing to do with anybody's second amendment.

And I think that the specific right to possess firearms in your second amendment is a right that individuals have in order that the collectivity to which they belong is able to exercise a collective right -- which is THE COLLECTIVE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, **NOT** a collective right to "keep and bear arms".

So no, I DO NOT SAY that the second amendment right to "keep and bear arms" is a collective right.


I doubt that's any clearer now, but what the hell.


But in the earlier post you said that you weren't interested in what any pro- gun person had to say.

No, I DID NOT.

I asked why anyone would care that any "pro-gun person" apparently thought it was cool to place restrictions on what firearms or how many firearms a person could festoon him/herself with, in public, AS A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION.

You had said:

Moreover I don't believe I have ever seen a pro-gun person here suggest that everyone should be able to walk the streets with multiple firearms of their choice.

All that amounts to is "it's okay to restrict the exercise of a right in the way *I* say it's okay to restrict it".

You said that as if it somehow mattered what a "pro-gun person" might suggest, i.e. as if what a "pro-gun person" might suggest DECIDED something. Said "pro-gun person" speaks only for him/herself, as a matter of personal preference. What s/he says decides nothing.

If the "pro-gun person" is suggesting that restrictions may be placed on the right to "keep and bear arms" as interpreted by that person, then all bets are off. The door is opened, and the exercise of the right may be restricted. Per the "pro-gun person".


I personally think we should base policy on fact.

Here's a fact: over 10,000 people a year are victims of firearm homicide in the US.

What policy would you like to base on that?

Policies are not based on fact; that's an utter nonsense.

Facts are useful in mustering argument for and against a policy, but the policy will be based on the needs of the community and its members, the resources available to the community, the community's values, and, in practical terms, the relative ability of different segments of the community to use public policy to advance their interests.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmg257 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Nice post. And might impact our discussion below on "collective enterprise"
Edited on Wed May-28-08 07:47 PM by jmg257
My apologies if I read something different in "collective" then you meant.

I liked this explanation:

Seems to me that the right of individuals to possess firearms in order that the group can exercise its collective right to self-determination by ensuring the security of the free state comprised by the group is a right for which the conditions of exercise can just as properly be decided by the collectivity.

That doesn't mean that I don't think that individuals have a right to possess firearms for other purposes. I do, just as I think individuals have a right to possess socks and pizza. That's called liberty. But the exercise of that right is just as subject to restrictions, where they are needed in order to protect an overriding public interest, as any other right is.



Which I think is what the Heller case will be ultimately all about - the level of scrutiny necessary for proposed "restrictions" on the individual right aspects of the 2nd.

edit added last comment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. I figure DC should have hired me

Hell, I would have done it for free.

I just see this second-amendment thing as a box that the entire US can't get itself out of. All anybody seems to see is the view inside the box, not what's on the outside of it. Of course, that's political thought in the US in a nutshell ...

And of course I also think that individuals keeping and bearing arms being essential to the security of a free state kinda went out with hoop skirts -- and somebody might actually figure that out some day, so it might be wise to look outside that box for a source of the rights one might like to assert, and the sort of restrictions on the exercise of them that are permissible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmg257 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. They could have used you.
Edited on Wed May-28-08 08:46 PM by jmg257
Don't know if you read the DC brief, but about 1/3 of their argument is the 'military use only' interpretation of "to keep and bear arms". Obviously I disagree with their argument, but still...they make their point Ok, but then a few sections later include the Pennsylvania quote which (I think) is quite contrary. And they had some argument for "defence of themselves" also showing a militia/collective intent that was a bit of a reach.

They did come up with a decent argument for the 1st Senate's rejection of adding "for the common defence" after "...bear arms" by saying that would have been in tension with the militia's role "to enforce the laws". I never thought of that, and I liked to use that incident as a clear argument in support of the "individual right" intent.

(There was something else in there about assault weapons bans vs. govt restrictions that seemed weird, and I thought was no help to their argument, but I don't remember what it was(???) I have to read it again)


And of course I also think that individuals keeping and bearing arms being essential to the security of a free state kinda went out with hoop skirts

I agree. I do think the militia intent of the 2nd & the orginal militia clauses - to limit the need of a large standing army, is outdated since we now have the largest standing army in the world. Obviously we the people must think the best security is exactly that.
Personally, when being all patriotic I too think it's a good thing, but then when re-visiting why the framers feared that bane of liberty, I start to wonder. Some of these bastards we have in charge are just so hard to trust.

edit: spelling, clarify, add last thought
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #31
51. I thought this was hilarious then.
There are many laymen, yours truly included, who would have wiped the floor with the arguments that have been displayed here.

Imagine what the opposing lawyers and the justices would have done with them.

Heck, it might have been 9-0!

:rofl:


Hey, wait a minute. I wish D.C. had made this choice!


:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Thanks for the explanation.
I never said in what way you argued it as a collective right just that you seemed to be arguing it as collective (in some manner) in the post to which I responded.


Here are some other facts: there are over 200,000,000 million guns in the US. Most of the 10,000 homicides are committed by convicted felons who are prohibited by law from possessing firearms. The average police response to a felony 911 call in my town is over 8 minutes.

As for your statement that, "Policies are not based on fact; that's utter nonsense."

Hang on a minute I need to save that one.


Here's the dictionary definition of Base-noun-a fundamental principle or groundwork; foundation; basis:

I believe the fundamental groundwork, foundation and basis for public policy should be FACT.


I will leave you to argue that is utter nonsense.
The Bush administration though likes your approach better, see the Iraq War. Who needs fact when you have the ability to use public policy to advance your interest? I see your point things go a lot better when you don't use FACTS as a foundation for public policy, as least they go better for those able to set policy.

Other than that last part you explained and defended your point quite well. I appreciate it.


David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmg257 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. Compared to "bear arms for the defence of themselves..."
Edited on Wed May-28-08 06:57 PM by jmg257
"7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game;..."

"Bear arms" may indeed mean something other then to "wander the streets festooned in firearms all by one's lonesome", but it certainly did cover the use of firearms (and the bearing of them) for more then just a collective enterprise.

Since such was common use of the term at the time, there is no reason the 2nd too wouldn't include/cover self-defense, hunting, or any lawful purpose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. gee, I must have missed something

That's not what any second amendment I've ever read says.

In fact, that would be the wording of something that was rejected, from what I can tell.

By that reasoning, I guess the assault weapons ban must be interpreted as still being in force ...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmg257 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. You would be correct - it is NOT the 2nd amendment which is quoted.
Edited on Wed May-28-08 07:12 PM by jmg257
The term used that is under discussion here - "bear arms", is however used in this recommendation AND in the 2nd. Certainly it's use in the Pennsylvania Minority's proposal shows "bear arms" at the time meant more then arms use in a collective enterprise. No reason to think (or pretend) it meant something less in the 2nd. Clearly Militia duty was a primary purpose for securing the right, just not the only one.

edit: proposal=recommendation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #26
40. "Bear arms" in US constitutions explicitly means individual AND collective all the way back to 1776.
The phrase "bear arms" is used to mean the carrying of personally owned guns on the person for self-defense in state constitutions dating all the way from 1776 to the 1990's. The phrase has never been restricted to a military sense in the entire history of the United States; the Pennsylvania wording dates to 1776. A few states do restrict the carriage of personal weapons to open (unconcealed) carry, but even those states apply the phrase "bear arms" to individual self-defense.

Only a very small handful of states (Massachusetts, a few others) apply the right to "common defense" only.


Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1819, art. I, § 23, with "defence" in place of "defense," spelling changed 1901).

Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1912).

Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi Constitution of 1817.

Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Art. I, § 20 (enacted 1987).

Florida: (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

Illinois: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1970).

Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. Art. I, § 32 (enacted 1851, art. I, § 32).
1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20.

Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Bill of Rights, § 4 (enacted 1859, art. I, § 4).

Kentucky: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: ...
Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. § 1 (enacted 1891).

Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1963).
1835: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 13.
1850: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state." Art. XVIII, § 7.

Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Art. III, § 12 (enacted 1890, art. 3, § 12).
1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 23.
1832: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and of the State." Art. I, § 23.
1868: "All persons shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their defence." Art. I, § 15.

Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1945).
1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, § 3.
1865: Same as above, but with "the lawful authority of the State" instead of "the State." Art. I, § 8.
1875: "That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons." Art. II, § 17.

Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. Art. II, § 12 (enacted 1889).

Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1988).

Nevada: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes. Art. I, § 11(1) (enacted 1982).

New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. Pt. 1, art. 2-a (enacted 1982).

New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. Art. II, § 6 (first sentence enacted in 1971, second sentence added 1986).
1912: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." Art. II, § 6.

North Dakota: All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1984).

Ohio: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 4 (enacted 1851).
1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20.

Oklahoma: The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1907).

Oregon: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power<.> Art. I, § 27 (enacted 1857, art. I, § 28).

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.

South Dakota: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied. Art. VI, § 24 (enacted 1889).

Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876).
1836: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power." Declaration of Rights, cl. 14.
1845: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defence of himself or the State." Art. I, § 13.
1868: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe." Art. I, § 13.

Utah: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1984).
1896: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law."

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).

West Virginia: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use. Art. III, § 22 (enacted 1986).

Wisconsin: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Art. I, § 25 (enacted 1998).

Wyoming: The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #18
38. Let's start another thread, to avoid totally hijacking this one.
Trying to pretend that "bear arms" does not refer to carrying weapons as part of a collective enterprise -- its meaning at its origins, its meaning at the time of your second amendment, and its meaning today, in fact -- is one of the best tricks of the gunhead brigade."


It does refer to carrying weapons as part of a collective enterprise. That is one of its meanings.


"Bear arms" really just did not mean "wander the streets festooned in firearms all by one's lonesome" 250 years ago, and still doesn't.



You are quite simply wrong, unless you're counting on wordplay involving "festooned" or some other device:



tr.v. fes·tooned, fes·toon·ing, fes·toons

1. To decorate with or as if with festoons; hang festoons on.
2. To form or make into festoons.


www.dictionary.com



No one actually had that image then, and no one (except you) has it now. So technically I agree with you. Bearing arms did not mean to "wander the streets festooned in firearms all by one's lonesome." It did, however, mean to walk (or run or ride) while carrying a gun or other weapon on or about one's person. A collective enterprise was not required.

Your cited evidence is neither here nor there. Assuming its authenticity (which I haven't looked into) it shows that bearing arms did mean to carry arms in service to the king. So what? That is not in dispute.

The problem I have with gun control is its claim that the Second Amendment never protected and was not intended to protect the right to walk (or run or ride) while carrying a gun on or about one's person while not acting as part of a collective enterprise.

Tell you what. If you want to debate this let's start another thread. I'll start it tomorrow provided time allows, by laying out my case (with point-by-point support to follow later). Or you can if you get to it first.



You know it, I know it, we know it, they know it.

Some people really do seem to think they invented the wheel ...




LOL.

Either you're a masochist or you're really going to shock me. I hope you have at least some surprises, though to prove your case is, IMHO, impossible.

(There is more than little old me backing that up. Eminent scholars who hated (or still hate) the idea of an individual right to keep and bear arms have been compelled by the evidence to accept it. They aren't all "pro-gun" by any stretch of the imagination, and many that are were originally forced into it by scholarly integrity. Of course numbers and eminence guarantee nothing. You could be the Newton or Einstein of US Constitutional law.)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #18
41. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MyRV9 Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
42. Go read the opinion. You obviously haven't.
Read the opinion. Then go read the Miller opinion. Your stance opposes both. The majority opinion in this case is reasonable and well-defended.

Then realize that the second amendment doesn't grant any rights. It recognizes a pre-existing right that men have enjoyed since cavemen carried spears. The "militia" clause simply announces why the amendment should be included at all (since the right already existed), and does so without limiting the operative clause or the underlying right.

As for the right to bear arms being a collective right. Are the rights to petition government, speak freely or assemble collective rights? They use the same "right of the people" language.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Not that I'm defending iverglas, perish the thought
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 12:19 PM by TPaine7
But she couldn't have read the opinion when she posted that.

I resurrected this thread to answer a particularly odious sophistry with an actual Supreme Court statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Since she is not a US resident, or citizen, it is moot
for her.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MyRV9 Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. Oops!
I should have paid closer attention!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. well hey, y'all feel free to apologize now, y'hear?


As for the right to bear arms being a collective right. Are the rights to petition government, speak freely or assemble collective rights? They use the same "right of the people" language.

I don't know.

WHY DON'T YOU FUCKING ASK SOMEBODY WHO FUCKING SAID THAT THE FUCKING RIGHT TO BEAR FUCKING ARMS IS A COLLECTIVE FUCKING RIGHT?

**I** have not said that. **I** have said the exact opposite. So take your stupid retreaded unoriginal parrot lines and squawk them at somebody else, will you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. LOL
Trying to pretend that "bear arms" does not refer to carrying weapons as part of a collective enterprise -- its meaning at its origins, its meaning at the time of your second amendment, and its meaning today, in fact -- is one of the best tricks of the gunhead brigade.

"Bear arms" really just did not mean "wander the streets festooned in firearms all by one's lonesome" 250 years ago, and still doesn't.

You know it, I know it, we know it, they know it.--iverglas





At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to
“carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete
Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford
English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford).
When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning
that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—
confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S.
125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of
“carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE
GINSBURG wrote that “<s>urely a most familiar meaning is,
as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate<s>:
‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing
or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and
ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion)
(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We
think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the
natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase
implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose
of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes
participation in a structured military organization.
From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude
that this natural meaning was also the meaning that
“bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances,
“bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to
the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.
The most prominent examples are those most relevant to
the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions
written in the 18th century or the first two decades
of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear
arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms
in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those
formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry-
ing a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James
Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing
right, for example, as a recognition of the natural
right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called
the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James
Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing
Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction
to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of
self-defence guaranteed by the constitution”);
see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with
that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also
the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions
adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions
demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic
context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying
of arms in a militia.
--Supreme Court of the United States of America


LOL. "Bear arms" does not imply carrying arms "as part of a collective enterprise" despite the bovine scatology and desperate spin. That sophistry died an ugly death today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #42
48. go read post 29

You obviously haven't.

So feel free to apologize for putting words in my mouth I never spoke, when the words I did speak were right here under your nose.

Whether you'll comprehend them is of course another matter.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MyRV9 Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. I was replying...
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 05:33 PM by MyRV9
...to this:

That's a good one. Trying to pretend that "bear arms" does not refer to carrying weapons as part of a collective enterprise -- its meaning at its origins, its meaning at the time of your second amendment, and its meaning today, in fact -- is one of the best tricks of the gunhead brigade.

Your post #18.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. She said "collective enterprise"
not "COLLECTIVE FUCKING RIGHT", and that is, I think the crux of the point.

There is some fine distinction. . . somewhere. . . I'm sure, . . . but. . . I don't think it makes an actual difference. (In our universe, anyway.)

I wouldn't worry about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. indeed you were

And as I predicted, you failed to comprehend it.

But don't let that stop you apologizing, now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MyRV9 Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. If the founders...
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 09:20 PM by MyRV9
Had wanted to protect the bearing of arms only when engaged in some "collective enterprise" (whatever the hell that means) they would have. As it is, the amendment's language is perfectly clear.

As has been stated many times before, the first clause of the amendment doesn't limit the second. That's simple grade school English.

The amendment may as well read: "The moon being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #42
64. I would have so loved to continue the conversation

... what with the thread being dredged up and all ... but oh well.



They come, they go, we just don't get a chance to talk.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. Is it okay to gloat about these?
I've managed to add up quite a few in my short time here.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MullenBank Donating Member (141 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-28-08 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
55. Liberals carry guns?
This one does.

When the Heller decision was announced I was all "YES MOTHERFUCKER YES YES YES YES YES YES MOTHERFUCKER IN YOUR FACE YES YES YES" but now I am calm and happy that the matter is settled law YES YES YES YES oops sry that one got away from me.... time to invite the folks who are gun shy to go to the range with you. Show 'em you mean them no harm and are really a good guy or gal to have around in case of REAL trouble.

Got only love for ya.

YES YES yes yes yes.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-14-08 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #55
67. Me, too. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-14-08 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #67
68. ya really gotta watch out

for that "lying down with dogs" thing.

RIP, MullenBank.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Dawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-29-08 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
56. Cool site, thanks for posting the link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-30-08 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
57. Every day I have to make up my mind
if I want bring out the CZ or the Glock, if I want to go OWB for the overall comfort or if it is too hot out for anything more substantial than a tshirt. I'm worse than a stereotypical high school girl trying to get dressed, but it is definitely worth it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
F2XL Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
58. Thankfully
Yes, there are some pretty common sense Libs that don't want to be outgunned by Cons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. Welcome to DU, F2XL

:hi:

Nice thread resuscitation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. aww, I was too late, myself

Take the weekend off, and look what happens ...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #58
62. 15 posts and a pro gun post. Congratulations!
Welcome, and thanks for bringing this oldie back.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. 15 posts and a tombstone

Too bad you didn't read what was already posted before making yourself look ... you know.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 07:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC