You rang?

Atta boy Dick!

/NRA Member
//Link to NRA Amicus brief (pops, 41 page PDF) which is NOT the one Cheney signed onto but is excellent IMHO.

It's the amendment above it that's a pain in the ass, eh Dick?

That is an unfair headline, submitter. It was birdshot, not buckshot.

No, the 2nd Amendment doesn't state everyone can own as many assault rifles as they can afford. It actually states that the States can establish militias, i.e. the National Guards.

/Looking forward to the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the DC gun ban.

"The hunting ground has been prepared, Mr. Cheney."

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.

Well-regulated militia's should be able to bear arms.
Unregulated moronic citizens, should not.

Sleeping Monkey: 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.

Well-regulated militia's should be able to bear arms.
Unregulated moronic citizens, should not.

No one's buying that revisionist interpretation. Not the lower courts, and, as you will soon see, not the Supreme Court either.

The only part of the Bill of Rights these corksoakers like.

Sleeping Monkey: Well-regulated militia's should be able to bear arms.
Unregulated moronic citizens, should not.

So, how does one start a militia without an armed citizenry?

BravadoGT: No one's buying that revisionist interpretation.

You say revisionist as if it's a bad thing. Revising outdated documents is part of the progression of society. When the Second Amendment was written it took 30 seconds to reload a gun. It can't possibly be interpreted to mean the same as it did when it was written.

Should I be allowed to keep and bear automatic weapons? What about garage full of rocket launchers? Or nuclear arms? Is the government infringing upon my god given right to keep and bear nuclear arms?

There comes a time when you have to face reality.

BravadoGT: and, as you will soon see, not the Supreme Court either.

Sadly, you are probably right.

mediaho: Sleeping Monkey: Well-regulated militia's should be able to bear arms.
Unregulated moronic citizens, should not.

So, how does one start a militia without an armed citizenry?

How to Activate the Constitutional Militia in Your Area (new window)

good luck with that.

Sleeping Monkey: Is the government infringing upon my god given right to keep and bear nuclear arms?

They infringe upon your right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater as well. Is that unreasonable?

Sleeping Monkey: How to Activate the Constitutional Militia in Your Area (new window)

good luck with that.

Damn it. Now I'm probably on Cheney's list for clicking that. ;-)

mediaho: They infringe upon your right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater as well. Is that unreasonable?

I don't get it. How is peaceably keeping nuclear arms (or automatic weapons, or a handgun) akin to putting lives at risk by yelling fire in a crowded theater?


/don't have a nuclear weapon

I like a good gun thread, but so far its just Sleeping Monkey trolling and idiots responding to him. I'll be back later i guess.

Sleeping Monkey: 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.

Well-regulated militia's should be able to bear arms.
Unregulated moronic citizens, should not.

Which is why gun classes should be mandatory in all public schools. Might as well teach people how to regulate themselves as children

Sleeping Monkey: mediaho: They infringe upon your right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater as well. Is that unreasonable?

I don't get it. How is peaceably keeping nuclear arms (or automatic weapons, or a handgun) akin to putting lives at risk by yelling fire in a crowded theater?


/don't have a nuclear weapon

You don't? Oh, well I know who I'm robbing tonight.

Why, if every American doesn't have a nuke how will they keep their neighbors from bombing them? We need them to protect our property! What if an Iranian immigrates here and starts a power plant in their basement, hmm? They could be making a nuke over there. I'm stocked up.

Dick "Buckshot" Cheney signs amicus brief in favor of Second Amendment

Meanwhile, Ted "Glugglugvroomvroomsplash" Kennedy signs amicus brief in favor of Chivas Regal.

JQPublic: Dick "Buckshot" Cheney signs amicus brief in favor of Second Amendment

Meanwhile, Ted "Glugglugvroomvroomsplash" Kennedy signs amicus brief in favor of Chivas Regal.

Cosigned by Laura Bush, I presume.

If the second amendment was really supposed to protect an individual's right to guns, why didn't they just say that? A "well-regulated militia" is the exact opposite of every person being able to stock up on as many guns of whatever type as their house can hold.

Also worth noting: the phrase "bear arms" was a military term at the time of the creation of the Bill of Rights. If they had intended for this to go beyond military-related activities, they wouldn't have used such language.

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: A "well-regulated militia" is the exact opposite of every person being able to stock up on as many guns of whatever type as their house can hold.

Speaking of antiquated phrasing changing meanings over the years, check out the meaning of 'well-regulated'. It doesn't mean National Guard.

In fact, while you're at it, check out the US legal definition of 'militia'.

wxgeek: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: A "well-regulated militia" is the exact opposite of every person being able to stock up on as many guns of whatever type as their house can hold.

Speaking of antiquated phrasing changing meanings over the years, check out the meaning of 'well-regulated'. It doesn't mean National Guard.

In fact, while you're at it, check out the US legal definition of 'militia'.

I never suggested it meant National Guard- where did you come up with that? And I know what a militia is. In the case at hand, the Respondant hasn't claimed to be a part of any militia, so this argument pretty much fails here.

Sleeping Monkey: You say revisionist as if it's a bad thing. Revising outdated documents is part of the progression of society. When the Second Amendment was written it took 30 seconds to reload a gun. It can't possibly be interpreted to mean the same as it did when it was written.

Why not? The weapons they were talking about were the man-portable weapons of the day. At what point does technology make the second amendment outdated? Was it the development of bolt-action rifles? Or the Sharps repeaters in the Civil War? Maybe the Mosin Nagant, the weapon of choice for the most successful sniper in the history of the world? Or is it the fully automatic machine gun team? (which, I'll note, is generally operated by a team of 2-3 people, and - imho - falls outside of the range of man-portable weaponry)

Should I be allowed to keep and bear automatic weapons? What about garage full of rocket launchers? Or nuclear arms? Is the government infringing upon my god given right to keep and bear nuclear arms?

Yes, maybe, no, and in that order.

FTFA: Lawyers with long experience at the court could not recall another case in which a vice president took a position different from that of his own administration.

It IS Deadeye Dickless' administration.

Dumbya is just his meat puppet.

Wonder wot made him change his mind after taking guns away from all them folk after Katrina? Sorry, wot's that? It doesn't count when he takes guns away from brown people ya say? Ah, Republican logic is truly a staggering thing.

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: ...Also worth noting: the phrase "bear arms" was a military term at the time of the creation of the Bill of Rights. If they had intended for this to go beyond military-related activities, they wouldn't have used such language.

Ok smarty pants, than what term did they use for ursine apendages?

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: I never suggested it meant National Guard- where did you come up with that? And I know what a militia is. In the case at hand, the Respondant hasn't claimed to be a part of any militia, so this argument pretty much fails here.

I know you know what a militia is, but are you aware of what the American legal definition of 'militia' is? And what's your interpretation of "well-regulated"?

If you're on the same side of about any issue as Messrs Bush and Cheney, you might want to rethink your position.

quatchi: Wonder wot made him change his mind after taking guns away from all them folk after Katrina? Sorry, wot's that? It doesn't count when he takes guns away from brown people ya say? Ah, Republican logic is truly a staggering thing.

You're, uh, you're seriously suggesting that Cheney demanded that civilian weaponry be confiscated after Katrina? AFAIK, that royal farkup was the responsibility of the New Orleans PD.

Shaggy_C: If you're on the same side of about any issue as Messrs Bush and Cheney, you might want to rethink your position.

Yeah, I know. I hate this administration too, but it's interesting to note that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are on opposite sides of this particular issue.

wxgeek: I know you know what a militia is, but are you aware of what the American legal definition of 'militia' is? And what's your interpretation of "well-regulated"?

Sure do- "A body of citizens armed and trained, esp. by a state, for military service apart from the regular armed forces."

And I would define "well-regulated" as something more than, "I should be able to have guns, because some day, I might feel like joining a group, and stuff."

If you need guns in your life, take on the responsibility of being trained and donating your time and effort towards a state-sanctioned group. If gun owners had to be serious enough about the responsibility that they would, say, donate time towards rebuilding New Orleans, or actually go off and learn to become a fighting force that could actually be an asset to the State in the case of insurrection/chaos, accidental shootings would decrease.

If you can't/ don't want to do so, then the Second Amendment doesn't protect your federal individual right to own guns. It's as simple as that.

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: If the second amendment was really supposed to protect an individual's right to guns, why didn't they just say that? A "well-regulated militia" is the exact opposite of every person being able to stock up on as many guns of whatever type as their house can hold.

Also worth noting: the phrase "bear arms" was a military term at the time of the creation of the Bill of Rights. If they had intended for this to go beyond military-related activities, they wouldn't have used such language.

Again, without an armed citizenry, you can't have any militia, well-regulated or not.

Dick Cheney did something good? That's unpossible!

mediaho: Again, without an armed citizenry, you can't have any militia, well-regulated or not.

I disagree. If a state is serious about having a group of sub- weekend warriors as a line of defense, "well-regulation" could easily include actual supply of the weapons themselves. If every member could just go off firing whenever and wherever they please, that would be the very opposite of "well-regulated," IMO.

mediaho: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: If the second amendment was really supposed to protect an individual's right to guns, why didn't they just say that? A "well-regulated militia" is the exact opposite of every person being able to stock up on as many guns of whatever type as their house can hold.

Also worth noting: the phrase "bear arms" was a military term at the time of the creation of the Bill of Rights. If they had intended for this to go beyond military-related activities, they wouldn't have used such language.

Again, without an armed citizenry, you can't have any militia, well-regulated or not.

Phffft there are militias in the US just they are not publicized... militia has kinda bad connotation to it.

Taco! wrote: If a state is serious about having a group of sub- weekend warriors as a line of defense, "well-regulation" could easily include actual supply of the weapons themselves.

And when the state has become the tyrant you're trying to overthrow in order to restore your freedom? Do you expect them to arm you? Would you have had the Minutemen armed by the King?

Government is not your friend.

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: mediaho: Again, without an armed citizenry, you can't have any militia, well-regulated or not.

I disagree. If a state is serious about having a group of sub- weekend warriors as a line of defense, "well-regulation" could easily include actual supply of the weapons themselves. If every member could just go off firing whenever and wherever they please, that would be the very opposite of "well-regulated," IMO.

Well regulated at the time of the writing was generally taken to mean "in well working order" equiped and armed, not controlled. If the arms are given by the state to the militia but the militia members are not able to "keep" them, I fail to see where that lives up to the 3rd statement in the amendment.

ZAZ: That is an unfair headline, submitter. It was birdshot, not buckshot.

Technically, it was oldmanshot.

Waaait, let me get this straight: the anti-KBA people here are advocating the state issuing personal arms to all able-bodied individuals over the age of 18?

What rabbit hole did I step down?

Sleeping Monkey: BravadoGT: No one's buying that revisionist interpretation.

You say revisionist as if it's a bad thing. Revising outdated documents is part of the progression of society. When the Second Amendment was written it took 30 seconds to reload a gun. It can't possibly be interpreted to mean the same as it did when it was written.

Should I be allowed to keep and bear automatic weapons? What about garage full of rocket launchers? Or nuclear arms? Is the government infringing upon my god given right to keep and bear nuclear arms?

There comes a time when you have to face reality.

BravadoGT: and, as you will soon see, not the Supreme Court either.

Sadly, you are probably right.


The founding fathers did not invision the advent of the internet. Does that mean the 1st amendment does not apply to it?

The way that the Constitution is revised is through amendments, not revisionist thinking.

poundgrayly: And when the state has become the tyrant you're trying to overthrow in order to restore your freedom? Do you expect them to arm you? Would you have had the Minutemen armed by the King?

Government is not your friend.

I never said anything about the government being my "friend," I merely pointed out that I believe it is misguided to read an individual right to gun ownership into an amendment about states having militias.

Secondly, most states have conferred an individual right to gun ownership that is far less ambiguous than the language relied upon in the Second Amendment anyways, and therefore your scenario would be irrelevant.

Finally, if the federal government were to take the step of completely banning all guns (which will never, ever happen- the NRA is far too powerful), and your state government were to become tyrannical (whatever that means- many gun rights activists seem to be the first to support things like the Patriot Act and other substantive erosions of actual individual rights), that 9 mm you keep under your pillow ain't gonna do anything.

"The vice president believes strongly in Second Amendment rights,"

As opposed to the remainder of the Constitution.


BravadoGT

No one's buying that revisionist interpretation. Not the lower courts, and, as you will soon see, not the Supreme Court either.

Not arguing, just asking:

1. How is this "revisionist" since the Constitution specificially mentions a well-regulated militia?

b. Why is "revisionist" a bad thing when it comes to the COnstitution, which provides within itself the possibility and means of change?

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: If the second amendment was really supposed to protect an individual's right to guns, why didn't they just say that? A "well-regulated militia" is the exact opposite of every person being able to stock up on as many guns of whatever type as their house can hold.

Also worth noting: the phrase "bear arms" was a military term at the time of the creation of the Bill of Rights. If they had intended for this to go beyond military-related activities, they wouldn't have used such language.

If the Constitution was written today it would be thousands of pages long to lawyer everything out. They made it say what they wanted with just a few words. Back in the day the Militia was the people. Just because society has changed the definition does not mean it also changes what the amendment says.

Sleeping Monkey: BravadoGT: No one's buying that revisionist interpretation.

You say revisionist as if it's a bad thing. Revising outdated documents is part of the progression of society. When the Second Amendment was written it took 30 seconds to reload a gun. It can't possibly be interpreted to mean the same as it did when it was written.

Should I be allowed to keep and bear automatic weapons? What about garage full of rocket launchers? Or nuclear arms? Is the government infringing upon my god given right to keep and bear nuclear arms?

There comes a time when you have to face reality.

BravadoGT: and, as you will soon see, not the Supreme Court either.

Sadly, you are probably right.

Assuming you're not trolling full-blast:

There's a fundamental difference between revised and revisionist. The former implies that the document was altered in such a manner as to update or correct it. The latter implies that you pretty much threw the originating document out the window and changed it to whatever best suits you.

Latching on to the word "militia", interpreting "militia" by a definition which puts the power in the hands of the state and not the people, and ignoring the entire phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Yeah, that's the latter.

And before you even get to the spurious "People = state" argument: so, the First only protects the rights of the state to peaceably assemble, and the Fourth only covers the state from undue search and seizure? Think hard about your answer, here.

Occam's Chainsaw: Waaait, let me get this straight: the anti-KBA people here are advocating the state issuing personal arms to all able-bodied individuals over the age of 18?

What rabbit hole did I step down?

Yep. Pretty much. In between the VPC brief's ridiculous claim that semiautomatic pistols didn't exist thirty years ago, the Brady Bunch arguing that some archaic, race-based pistol ban proves the law is Constitutional (but failing to mention said law was struck down for violating the Second Amendment), and the District claiming it's their duty to protect citizens (even though they've sued and won a half dozen times so they don't have that duty), their basic claim is that the several states can and are responsible for arming all citizens without Federal interference. Which is quite strange seeing as that position works against all the Federal laws they want.

From here, it really looks like they're just getting desperate..

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: poundgrayly: And when the state has become the tyrant you're trying to overthrow in order to restore your freedom? Do you expect them to arm you? Would you have had the Minutemen armed by the King?

Government is not your friend.

I never said anything about the government being my "friend," I merely pointed out that I believe it is misguided to read an individual right to gun ownership into an amendment about states having militias.

Secondly, most states have conferred an individual right to gun ownership that is far less ambiguous than the language relied upon in the Second Amendment anyways, and therefore your scenario would be irrelevant.

Finally, if the federal government were to take the step of completely banning all guns (which will never, ever happen- the NRA is far too powerful), and your state government were to become tyrannical (whatever that means- many gun rights activists seem to be the first to support things like the Patriot Act and other substantive erosions of actual individual rights), that 9 mm you keep under your pillow ain't gonna do anything.

So it is the power of the NRA and not their correct positoion that maintains the 2nd amendment?

During the revolution the colonies fought the most powerful nation in the world with muskets and what they could capture from them. It would be no different today. Just because weapons are more powerful does not mean that the People could not defeat the gov't.

Saiga410: Well regulated at the time of the writing was generally taken to mean "in well working order" equiped and armed, not controlled. If the arms are given by the state to the militia but the militia members are not able to "keep" them, I fail to see where that lives up to the 3rd statement in the amendment.

That's the thing- individual gun rights people only want to focus on the third statement in 2A. They just want you to ignore the first 2 statements, because they hurt their argument. State militia members would be able to keep their guns, as long as they are active members that have kept up the training requirements. The same is true for police officers.

And do you have a source on your assertion about how "well-regulated" was interpreted in 1791? I have a tough time believing that it only meant that each member had lots of guns, and not sufficient organization necessary to actually be able to accomplish anything.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-- James Madison, The Federalist Papers

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

and finally...

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
-- Adolph Hitler, April 11 1942.

Taco!: you're an active member of your state militia if you're above the age of eighteen and are able bodied. Jives just fine with my argument that all adults have the right to personal ownership of firearms.

I'm fine with training and safety requirements.

Saiga410: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: mediaho: Again, without an armed citizenry, you can't have any militia, well-regulated or not.

I disagree. If a state is serious about having a group of sub- weekend warriors as a line of defense, "well-regulation" could easily include actual supply of the weapons themselves. If every member could just go off firing whenever and wherever they please, that would be the very opposite of "well-regulated," IMO.

Well regulated at the time of the writing was generally taken to mean "in well working order" equiped and armed, not controlled. If the arms are given by the state to the militia but the militia members are not able to "keep" them, I fail to see where that lives up to the 3rd statement in the amendment.

Ok. So the militia is part of the State. Which can be federlized and taken over by the gov't at a moments notice. So how then does the militia protect the People from the power of the gov't? It can't. That is why the people must be armed. The gov't only has the powers that it was given to by the People. It cannot create new powers for itself.