11, including child, 3, shot in Chicago park

[Distracted1]

Thanks for the word salad, that didn't even come close to replying to my post. Nice job....

I'll try again.
You assert that auto registration and titleing is okay because a literal reading of the Constitution finds no specific mention of automobiles.

I retort that a literal reading of the Constitution makes no specific mention of the discharge of an armament. (This is where I became unclear, I think.)

You assert that that is grasping, because it is silly to think that keeping arms doesn't come part-in-parcel with discharging them. Using the First amendment as an example, you point out that even though the Internet is not mentioned specifically, it is still protected.

I agree with your assertion. My statement about firing a weapon should have been qualified with something to indicate that it was facetious. The broader point I was trying to make was that rigidly literal readings of the Constitution result in an unworkable document.

To acknowledge that the constitution needs interpretation in order to function, but then insist that regulation is unconstitutional based upon that same rigidly literal reading of the text is trying to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Distracted1]

You have to consider the context in which the constitution was written. In most countries, the law restricted who could and couldn't "bear arms" (which usually meant who could and couldn't serve in the army) and this had caused real problems at many times. Those countries could not maintain a "well regulated militia" because the make-up of the militia was skewed by repressive laws that, for example, prohibited Catholics from serving.

It's possible (although obviously the USSC hasn't interpreted it that way) that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to avoid such a situation and ensure the armed forces that protected the USA were representative of "the people".

If we are looking to the context of the constitution for meaning, instead of the text itself, we must also consider what the term "arms" meant in 1787.
I would assert that in 1787, many of the small arms we have available today would have been considered "WMD"'s

 

[Distracted1]

Well, it's certainly not the giraffes of Africa.....

If one acknowledges that "the people" and "the militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment are essentially the same, then one must also acknowledge that the Second Amendment specifically allows for restrictions (see: "well regulated")

 

[AlBell]

Are vehicle registration and inspection laws equally Draconian in your estimation? If not, why not?

No, driving is not a constitutionally protected right.

What about laws requiring mandatory drug testing?

That, imo, is context dependent. Might be, might not be.

 

[Sabretooth]

If one acknowledges that "the people" and "the militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment are essentially the same, then one must also acknowledge that the Second Amendment specifically allows for restrictions (see: "well regulated")

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.

The text of the 2A doesn't specify what entity "regulates" this militia, or even what this "militia" is. Wiki has this:

Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are:

- The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
- The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.
- Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2]

So, one can assume, that "militia" basically encompasses all able bodied men, 17-45, are considered part of a "militia being necessary to a free state".

In other words, the "militia" part of the 2A is reinforced by the Militia Act of 1903. It's not a reach to qualify that the "regulated" part comes in when a young lad registers with Selective Service.

With "militia" being addressed...and basically required by the Federal Government...all that's left of the 2A is "the right of people" (which has already been covered).

The 2A recognizes that the people are the militia, and no militia is worthy to protect a free state without access to firearms.

 

[Distracted1]

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.

The text of the 2A doesn't specify what entity "regulates" this militia, or even what this "militia" is. Wiki has this:



So, one can assume, that "militia" basically encompasses all able bodied men, 17-45, are considered part of a "militia being necessary to a free state".

In other words, the "militia" part of the 2A is reinforced by the Militia Act of 1903. It's not a reach to qualify that the "regulated" part comes in when a young lad registers with Selective Service.

With "militia" being addressed...and basically required by the Federal Government...all that's left of the 2A is "the right of people" (which has already been covered).

The 2A recognizes that the people are the militia, and no militia is worthy to protect a free state without access to firearms.

I agree, the People are the militia, and the Militia is to be well regulated. According to that reading of the text, gun regulations are unambiguously constitutional.

Delving further, in the context of 1787 America, who is-and is not, a "person"

 

[Sabretooth]

I agree, the People are the militia, and the Militia is to be well regulated. According to that reading of the text, gun regulations are unambiguously constitutional.

No, the militia is regulated, not the firearms. You skipped "shall not be infringed".

Read the 2A in a different way:

"The right shall not be infringed upon to allow the people to keep and bear arms, as the people need to have arms should it be necessary to defend the free state via militia."

Due to the Militia Act, in preparation of action, you are actually required to keep and bear arms.

Nowhere in the 2A does it imply that firearms are to be regulated, only the militia. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Delving further, in the context of 1787 America, who is-and is not, a "person"

Probably white, land-owning men. But that has since been addressed in future Amendments.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I agree, the People are the militia, and the Militia is to be well regulated. According to that reading of the text, gun regulations are unambiguously constitutional.

Delving further, in the context of 1787 America, who is-and is not, a "person"

Well regulated also meant "well led" back then.

 

[Distracted1]

No, the militia is regulated, not the firearms. You skipped "shall not be infringed".

Read the 2A in a different way:

"The right shall not be infringed upon to allow the people to keep and bear arms, as the people need to have arms should it be necessary to defend the free state via militia."

Due to the Militia Act, in preparation of action, you are actually required to keep and bear arms.

Nowhere in the 2A does it imply that firearms are to be regulated, only the militia. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.



Probably white, land-owning men. But that has since been addressed in future Amendments.

A reasonable person can read it that way.
Regulating the militia might reasonably consist of an inventory of what arms are held by the potential members, and some insurance that those arms are in working order though, no?

 

[Sabretooth]

A reasonable person can read it that way.
Regulating the militia might reasonably consist of an inventory of what arms are held by the potential members, and some insurance that those arms are in working order though, no?

No, because a militia is made up of citizens. However, I always encourage individual training and safe handling so that if there is a problem the gun owner has an understanding to have it addressed.

You'd be hard pressed to find a gun owner that couldn't tell you if a gun is in proper working order or not.

 

[Distracted1]

No, because a militia is made up of citizens. However, I always encourage individual training and safe handling so that if there is a problem the gun owner has an understanding to have it addressed.

You'd be hard pressed to find a gun owner that couldn't tell you if a gun is in proper working order or not.

I find that to be unsatisfactory. How can a militia function without knowing what its' armaments consist of?

 

[Sabretooth]

I find that to be unsatisfactory. How can a militia function without knowing what its' armaments consist of?

That is something addressed should they be forced into service. We have several levels of military and police protection before it would get to mobilizing a militia. If it ever got to the point of using a militia, I'd say whatever firearm you have is good enough.

 

[Distracted1]

That is something addressed should they be forced into service. We have several levels of military and police protection before it would get to mobilizing a militia. If it ever got to the point of using a militia, I'd say whatever firearm you have is good enough.

True. How many layers of police and military were in place in 1787?

 

[triforcharity]

Yea you make it sound like someone selling guns to criminals is in any way responsible that the criminals bought guns.

There's laws against that.....Your move....

 

[triforcharity]

Just like preventing someone with minor mental illness and a few minor gun crimes shouldn't be stopped from buying guns. The navy yard shooter was a responsible gun owner until he started shooting people.

Actually, no, he wasn't. He was mentally ill, (which nobody, including family reported) and had TWO different charges that were related to guns. He should not have been allowed to have a gun to begin with. He most CERTAINLY should not have had ANY kind of security clearance, based on his previous history.

Lastly, his gun of choice was a shotgun. A pump action shotgun.

 

[triforcharity]

I'll try again.

This aught to be fun.

You assert that auto registration and titleing is okay because a literal reading of the Constitution finds no specific mention of automobiles.

Not just literal, but metaphorical, historical, and imaginary too. No matter how you twist and turn, that is still a fact.

I retort that a literal reading of the Constitution makes no specific mention of the discharge of an armament. (This is where I became unclear, I think.)

No, you became unclear when you tried to grasp for this straw, and made a foolish post, with literally, a laughingly stupid point.

You assert that that is grasping, because it is silly to think that keeping arms doesn't come part-in-parcel with discharging them.

No, that's pretty factual. I don't need to assert anything, it's a fact. And yes, your attempt at making some kind of point, was silly.

Using the First amendment as an example, you point out that even though the Internet is not mentioned specifically, it is still protected.

Correct. Keep going....

I agree with your assertion.

That's a plus, as It's not an assertion, it's a damn fact.

My statement about firing a weapon should have been qualified with something to indicate that it was facetious.

I don't believe that you were being all that facetious. I think you were trying desperately to make some kind of point, and you fell flat, and now want to distance yourself from that silly attempt. But, hey, it's amusing. Keep going.

The broader point I was trying to make was that rigidly literal readings of the Constitution result in an unworkable document.

Hence, it's not JUST literal, it's also well researched, and explained in supporting documents. Documents that you've apparently not read.

To acknowledge that the constitution needs interpretation in order to function, but then insist that regulation is unconstitutional based upon that same rigidly literal reading of the text is trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Not "regulation" but "an illegal search, without probable cause of a crime, is illegal." And what good is having a cake, if people keep trying to take my *********** cake, because they hate chocolate. **** those people. Leave my damn cake alone. (This isn't a personal attack against you. )

 

[triforcharity]

If one acknowledges that "the people" and "the militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment are essentially the same, then one must also acknowledge that the Second Amendment specifically allows for restrictions (see: "well regulated")

Since I've NEVER, NOT ONCE, argued against ALL gun regulation, your entire point is a figment of your own imagination. In fact, a few months back, quite a few of us had an entire thread dedicated to exactly that. And myself, and quite a few others, have suggested better regulations that some of the politicians suggestions.

 

[triforcharity]

If it ever got to the point of using a militia, I'd say whatever firearm you have is good enough.

This. Just this. If it fired bullets, it was good to go. And it's not like there was much of a wide variety back then. Not like today.

 

[Distracted1]

This aught to be fun.



Not just literal, but metaphorical, historical, and imaginary too. No matter how you twist and turn, that is still a fact.



No, you became unclear when you tried to grasp for this straw, and made a foolish post, with literally, a laughingly stupid point.



No, that's pretty factual. I don't need to assert anything, it's a fact. And yes, your attempt at making some kind of point, was silly.



Correct. Keep going....



That's a plus, as It's not an assertion, it's a damn fact.



I don't believe that you were being all that facetious. I think you were trying desperately to make some kind of point, and you fell flat, and now want to distance yourself from that silly attempt. But, hey, it's amusing. Keep going.



Hence, it's not JUST literal, it's also well researched, and explained in supporting documents. Documents that you've apparently not read.



Not "regulation" but "an illegal search, without probable cause of a crime, is illegal." And what good is having a cake, if people keep trying to take my *********** cake, because they hate chocolate. **** those people. Leave my damn cake alone. (This isn't a personal attack against you. )

It was facetious on it's face, you can choose to believe otherwise if you wish.
I would accuse you of arguing in a circle, however, looking back in this thread I see it is Wildcat, not you, who brought the Second Amendment into the discussion. You have held that it is the Fourth that makes registration "unconstitutional" throughout- <SNIP>.

Are you asserting (perhaps you should look op the definition of that word, along with the definition of "fact") that the Second Amendment does not prohibit annual gun registration? Because we can go back to discussing what makes a search "unreasonable" if that is the case.

Edited by Locknar: 

SNIPed, rule 0; name calling is never civil or polite.

 

[triforcharity]

It was facetious on it's face, you can choose to believe otherwise if you wish.

I'll choose to believe that you're running from an obviously silly post. Yes, I will believe that. Thanks.

I would accuse you of arguing in a circle, however, looking back in this thread I see it is Wildcat, not you, who brought the Second Amendment into the discussion.

That's good, glad you are at least semi-following along. But, to say the least, wildcat is right.

You have held that it is the Fourth that makes registration "unconstitutional" throughout- {snipped personal insult that is actually quite funny, but I reported it anyway}

No, the 4th amendment makes your little inspection suggestion illegal and unconstitutional. But, we can discuss the 2nd making this unconstitutional if you want. It's an interesting topic that both I, and Wildcat are well versed in. But, you're welcome to continue.

Are you asserting (perhaps you should look op the definition of that word, along with the definition of "fact") that the Second Amendment does not prohibit annual gun registration?

Pay attention, and you'd be able to answer this question for yourself.

Because we can go back to discussing what makes a search "unreasonable" if that is the case.

You can if you want to. I'm just along for the ride. It's amusing to watch.