san fransisco handgun ban Your thoughts.

So the people are going to vote on the subject but you're still bitching about it?????

Let them decide how they want to live, what has it got to do with anyone who doesn't live there?

Unless of course you feel that this is just the beginning and the cunning plan is to declare independance as they don't agree with the constitution, wouldn't that be amusing, then we'd see how imperialistic the US really is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

That's news to me- you're saying the second amendment isn't an individual right? The DOJ certainly doesn't hold that view- and the rulings have been far from conclusive in that regard. Or are you saying it's a state matter in that the 2A only limits federal restrictions on gun ownership, not the state and local governments?

---

Hiya X-man. I, like you, think of it as an individual right. However, there are those who take a different view -- see my earlier post on this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I fear it may spread, and if that happens were in trouble
So if people vote for something it will be passed . oh that damn democracy ....its evil I tell you EVILLLLLLLL

---

So if a majority of people within a city voted for slavery, then it would be perfectly alright by your definition of democracy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Hiya X-man. I, like you, think of it as an individual right. However, there are those who take a different view -- see my earlier post on this thread.

---

Sure, you can (wrongly :san_wink: ) think it's a state, not individual right... My point was that it's hardly a settled fact that it's a state right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Recognition of other views does not equate to those views being correct.

---

Yeah, what he said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DD

So if a majority of people within a city voted for slavery, then it would be perfectly alright by your definition of democracy?

---

Apparently the concept of majority rule with minority rights isn't familiar to him. :san_rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Sure, you can (wrongly :san_wink: ) think it's a state, not individual right... My point was that it's hardly a settled fact that it's a state right.

---

The fact is, the 2nd Amendment is extremely vague and incoherent. And, even though, by principles of Judicial review (which, in the end, can be disputed. The barrier between judicial review and judicial activism--which is heavily disputed--is blurry; some might say they're the same. John Marshall was the one who explicitly stated the power of judicial review, not the earlier documents), the judiciary has stated its "definition," people can still take on different views with some legal merit by the sheer vagueness of the source of the "right."

Could you please state why you believe that the said interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Yeah, what he said.

---

True. Whose one is correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Apparently the concept of majority rule with minority rights isn't familiar to him. :san_rolleyes:

---

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights seem to me more concerned with libertarian than democratic principles...

But is gun ownership a right? :san_undecided:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Could you please state why you believe that the said interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is wrong?

---

Actually, I put a link earlier on this page to the current Department of Justice interpretation of the 2A as an individual right- they lay out a decent case for it.

link

Personally, I think it's common sense. The Bill of Rights is all about individual rights- not state rights, why on earth would the 2A somehow be an exception? It doesnt pass the smell test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

If you have to ask that question, you should not be partaking in this conversation.

---

If some people could write clear amendments then there wouldn't be anything to discuss.

Amendment II

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.

This amendment makes no mention of people owning guns. The sentence doesn't even read well, I really don't understand why the US doesn't clarify it.

Edit2:

Quote:

---

Don't be dumb. The Bill of Rights, which includes the 2nd amendment, is inalienable. What you have in SF is Majority Tyranny, which the Bill of Rights is supposed prevent in part.

---

I'm dumb for suggesting that people should have a say over the laws that they need to live under? If that's the way it is then I'll admit it, I'm dumb.

So you think they should be forced to abide by what the minority in that state want just so it fits with your views? And you have the temerity to mention tyranny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Keep and Bear arms. How hard is that to read? It's only "vague" when anti-gun nuts want it to be vague.

---

Read the whole amendment, if it wasn't hard to understand then there would be no disagreement

Quote:

---

Nice try. The Bill of Rights is one of the essential devices built into our government to prevent tyranny of any type. Whether it be majority or minority. That you see fit to toss out the Bill of Rights just because it disagrees with your anti-gun agenda is rather telling.

---

This might actually mean something if I was American or had an anti-gun agenda.

Quote:

---

It doesn't say "..keep and bear arms, EXCEPT ..

---

It doesn't say "keep and bear all kinds of arms" either does it mate?

Whatever else the second amendment may be it is not perfectly clear. Purely as an exercise in statutory construction is is "clear" to me that the right to keep and bear arms is related to the need for a well regulated militia. However whether that means you should only be allowed to keep and bear arms if you are in a well regulated militia, or whether it means a general familiarity with arms would be a good thing because you might be in a militia in the future, well, that's not clear.

Its also not clear what a militia is in 2005. I know there is this fantasy that you have to interpret the amendment as it would have been intended 200 years ago, which is (1) a humiliatingly bad legal argument at least in UK terms and (2) a principle conveniently forgotten by the gun lobby when it comes to what type of guns they want to own, (unless musketry is big in the states?) It seems to me that as the militia is "necessary to the security of a free STATE" (my emphasis, note not free people) the modern militia must be the armed forces and national guard.

Therefore it would be perfectly legitimate to argue that the second amendment does not relate to private ownership of guns at all, but instead requires that anyone who wants to should be allowed to enlist in the armed forces.

So no, I wouldn't say it was a clear amendment.

Quote:

---

If you're not American, what do you care anyway?

---

Because he takes an interest in world affairs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

:san_rolleyes: Using that logic, we can dismantle the entire constitution to suit the needs of those who would like to expand government authority over individual rights. Freedom of Speach? Bah! Outdated.

---

Using that logic you could instead rewrite the parts of the constitution that are ambivalent or outdated. Or, you could bury your head in the sand, reject all other arguments because you don't think they suit and carry on as always, but no one would be that close minded, would they? :san_rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Using that logic, we can dismantle the entire constitution to suit the needs of those who would like to expand government authority over individual rights. Freedom of Speach? Bah! Outdated.

---

No we couldn't. I could ask you to look up the history of the interpretation of the ECHR but that would be profoundly facetious. Suffice it to say that the document, written in 1950, has been progressively interpreted in the light of current conditions to confer far, far more rights on individuals than can possibly have been in the minds of the draftsmen. Why you imagine a sensible approach to construction has to be in favour of the state I cannot imagine, that's why we have seperation of powers.

I really don't understand why the American right pappers its pants at the words "activist judge" (although bluntly in many cases I suspect its because they are too stupid to follow a decent argument, not a comment directed at fellow Orgers). As a believer in small, controlled government and individual rights (which i thought was more or less the touchstone of the right) I'd say its only the judges who have advanced either of those agendas in the UK.

Of course in America the right is not really right at all, because all the jesusland nonsense makes them far too interested in other peoples lives to deserve the accolade of being right wing. (Heh. And will they ever notice Jesus was a commie I wonder?) I guess that's the problem. Not directed at you personally GC, IIRC you aren't a god botherer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

And who does the re-writing, huh? People with agendas that are undoubtedly out of tune with the intent of the constitution, towards one extreme or another. People who would re-write it according to what they think their constitutuency wants to hear. Not with any regard for the past or the future, or the intent of the constitution.

You say burrying our heads in the sand? I say keeping ahold of the branch above, so we don't get caught in the quagmire.

---

Well, I would hope that the elected representatives of the people would write the constitution in line with what the people of the nation want, isn't that the way it works?

:san_laugh: Or something like that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

You simply don't trust politicans with something that important. :san_rolleyes:

---

Then don't elect them.

Doing nothing because you think it's going to be hard work isn't a good enough excuse, not for me anyway. Like most things its cost vs benefit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

And who does the re-writing, huh? People with agendas that are undoubtedly out of tune with the intent of the constitution, towards one extreme or another. People who would re-write it according to what they think their constitutuency wants to hear. Not with any regard for the past or the future, or the intent of the constitution.

You say burrying our heads in the sand? I say keeping ahold of the branch above, so we don't get caught in the quagmire.

---

everybody has an agenda my friend.....and that includes the people that wrote the american constitution too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Actually, I put a link earlier on this page to the current Department of Justice interpretation of the 2A as an individual right- they lay out a decent case for it.

link

---

Whoops. Missed that. Thanks. Quite a good read and clarify the judiciary's position quite well. Of course, the judiciary is ever-changing in position, as well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

If you have to ask that question, you should not be partaking in this conversation.

---

Why not? Perhaps you do not wish for people to ask questions without taking a clear position? Perhaps it is because you do not know that I already have my opinions about gun ownership, but would rather seek a less-personal, legal side of the issue by observing dialogue and asking questions? Or perhaps that question itself is a little rhetorical in itself?

:san_wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

Amendment II

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.

---

It is incredibly vague as it is. Somebody should've let the libertarian Jefferson write the entire thing; at least he was a clear writer from what I've seen. Or wait...don't tell me it was Jefferson writing that, because I am rather ignorant and, strangely, couldn't find who wrote them.

The original, historical intend of this declaration was quite clear: the federal government was not trusted, and, since the Bill of Rights' original creation was intended to convince Union skeptics to support the Constitution, and that the militia was an important (of not militarily, then symbolically) part of the Revolution, this right was intended to allow the spirit of locality, and local self-defense (realistically or not) to continue.

However, the modern interpretation has taken to defining each words of the Amendment, since the original intention no longer applies.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state was used by those who oppose private gun ownership as the more relevant part of the Amendment. Thus, clearly the Amendment intends to include only the well-regulated militias of the state, no?

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. was used, as GC demonstrates, as the more relevant part of the Amendment by those who support private gun ownership. After all, the right shall not be infringed!

Now, take both together and we get to probably related phrases that seems like two unrelated sentences, and defining the context becomes much harder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

However, the modern interpretation has taken to defining each words of the Amendment, since the original intention no longer applies.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state was used by those who oppose private gun ownership as the more relevant part of the Amendment. Thus, clearly the Amendment intends to include only the well-regulated militias of the state, no?

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. was used, as GC demonstrates, as the more relevant part of the Amendment by those who support private gun ownership. After all, the right shall not be infringed!

Now, take both together and we get to probably related phrases that seems like two unrelated sentences, and defining the context becomes much harder.

---

I think both would be true- the 2 statements are independent of each other and can stand on their own. A well-regulated militia is necessary and the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Although, I suppose the second clause would seem to be the important one. The militia portion is just a statement- it puts forth the notion that a militia is necessary. But, it's the second part that actually enumerates a right.

I´m not going to read any other post in this thread so sorry if this has been said already:

They have handguns in San Fran? Hmm... are they pink?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

I´m not going to read any other post in this thread so sorry if this has been said already:

They have handguns in San Fran? Hmm... are they pink?

---

Not anymore they dont- they're banned. :san_laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I think both would be true- the 2 statements are independent of each other and can stand on their own. A well-regulated militia is necessary and the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Although, I suppose the second clause would seem to be the important one. The militia portion is just a statement- it puts forth the notion that a militia is necessary. But, it's the second part that actually enumerates a right.

---

Then again, there will be other legal practitioners who would disagree with you, and they might be able to present a decent case, perhaps by claiming that both phrases add to one context of the Amendment, with the first being the condition in which the right stated in the second phrase would apply...

Or something similar...

Blame it on the original author.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

They have handguns in San Fran? Hmm... are they pink?

---

They are purple. Though some have pink flowers on them.