Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

aBoRTiOn v gUn cOnTroL

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Somebody let me know when da blacks gets em some guns so I know when to be scared.

    ​​​​​

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      He wasn't a liberal. He was viciously anti-gay.

      There's a decent write up of the history of the second amendment on this history website.

      It's notable that every single SCOTUS decision regarding the second amendment throughout US history before the 21st century was consistent. They all agree that the amendment didn't provide individuals with the right to bear arms. Nor did it limit the ability of the states to regulate firearms. They affirmed the idea that the only thing that the second amendment did was limit the federal government's power with regard to not being able to ban states from creating militias.

      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution" - SCOTUS, United States v. Cruikshank, 1876

      That case was the first SCOTUS case to directly discuss the meaning of the Second Amendment. And the decision was clear that there was no individual right to bear arms provided in the 2nd amendment. Rather, SCOTUS ruled that all it did was prevent congress doing a national gun ban at the federal level.
      This is a quotemine:
      https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/
      Primary Holding
      The right to keep and bear arms exists separately from the Constitution and is not solely based on the Second Amendment, which exists to prevent Congress from infringing the right.


      Actual (relevant) Text
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/92/542

      The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging 'the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone. Barron v. The City of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 250; Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, id. 551; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 434; Smith v. Maryland, 18 id. 76; Withers v. Buckley, 20 id. 90; Pervear v. The Commonwealth, 5 Wall. 479; Twitchell v. The Commonwealth, 7 id. 321; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 id. 557. It is now too late to question the correctness of this construction. As was said by the late Chief Justice, in Twitchell v. The Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 325, 'the scope and application of these amendments are no longer subjects of discussion here.' They left the authority of the States just where they found it, and added nothing to the already existing powers of the United States.

      15

      The particular amendment now under consideration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference. For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States.

      16

      The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for any thing else connected with the powers or the duties of the national government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States. The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances. If it had been alleged in these counts that the object of the defendants was to prevent a meeting for such a purpose, the case would have been within the statute, and within the scope of the sovereignty of the United States. Such, however, is not the case. The offence, as stated in the indictment, will be made out, if it be shown that the object of the conspiracy was to prevent a meeting for any lawful purpose whatever.

      17

      The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States.


      If you follow the bolded logic, the argument about this decision wasn't ABOUT keeping and bearing arms, but to which governing authority (state/federal) the amendment applied to. In fact, the argument applied equally to the 1st Amendment peaceably assembling clause as well. So, this example, with regards to your actual argument, falls flat.

      Originally posted by Starlight View Post


      SCOTUS readdressed the issue 10 years later in 1886 in Presser vs. Illinois, affirming that states were indeed allowed to ban individuals from having guns if they saw fit.
      https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/116/252/
      Primary Holding
      There is no Second Amendment violation when a state bans private citizens from forming personal military groups, drilling, and parading.


      https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/116/252
      Actual (relevant) text

      We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.' See, also, Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. State, 5 How. 410; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321, 327; Jackson v. Wood, 2 Cow. 819;Com. v. Purchase, 2 Pick. 521; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods, 308; North Carolina v. Newsom, 5 Ired. 250; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. 165; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455.

      16

      It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.



      Again, the argument is about keeping and bearing arms WRT to the amendment, but to which governing body the amendment refers to.


      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      Both those decisions took a very states-rights focused approach: Namely that the 2nd amendment meant states could pass whatever firearms based laws they felt like (including banning them), and that it limited the federal government's ability to stop the states doing what they liked on the issue. But they agreed it provided no right to bear arms to the individual person.

      The only major SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd amendment in the 20th century was United States vs Miller in 1934 which affirmed that the federal government's National Firearms Act was constitutional. This was arguably a bit of a deviation from their previous logic that the 2nd amendment limited the power of the federal government on the issue of firearms and that the 2nd amendment was about giving power to the states. But this decision argued that the 2nd amendment gave protection to "well regulated militia", so implied that the federal government could do as it pleased with regard to firearm regulation, so long as it didn't infringe on actual well-regulated militia.

      The decision in the 21st century by the radical activist conservative judges to throw out all the previous SCOTUS precedent on the issue was pretty shocking given how settled the jurisprudence had been throughout US history. Chief Justice Warren Burger could clearly see the writing on the wall though, as per my earlier cited quotes from him. He could see that the gun lobby was inventing a new individual right to bear arms as a creative reinterpretation of the second amendment that the court had never before recognized in US history.

      Your thesis is broken. Neither case dealt with the right of an individual to own guns. Both cases dealt with state vs federal authority. At the time these decisions was written, the prevailing legal theory was that the Amendments (including the 1st amendment) only restricted the federal government. They both assumed that the right to keep and bear arms existed, and that only the federal government was restricted from interfering with it.

      The logic you are using, when looking at the 1st Amendment could be used to argue that the 1A didn't mean people could peaceably assemble because prior to incorporation, it only restricted the federal government from interfering with it. Of course, that line of argument is weak. Nobody is going to try and argue that the 1A specifically saying the "right of the people to peaceably assemble" doesn't include people peaceably assembling.

      Comment


      • #78
        Guns and gunmanship are a Satanic fetish. Give them up and come to The Lord.
        “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
        “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
        “not all there” - you know who you are

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
          Guns and gunmanship are a Satanic fetish. Give them up and come to The Lord.
          An atheist providing advice on how to come to the Lord.


          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment

          Related Threads

          Collapse

          Topics Statistics Last Post
          Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
          6 responses
          45 views
          0 likes
          Last Post whag
          by whag
           
          Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
          42 responses
          231 views
          0 likes
          Last Post whag
          by whag
           
          Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
          24 responses
          104 views
          0 likes
          Last Post Ronson
          by Ronson
           
          Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
          32 responses
          176 views
          0 likes
          Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
          Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
          73 responses
          290 views
          0 likes
          Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
          Working...
          X