Re: Clearest and Most Lucid Explanation I Have Found...
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're putting way too much into this. Nobody was worried about individual rights to have guns for personal usage. That's why the Bill of Rights did not address this issue. They were worried about the increased power the newly consitutued federal government was going to have over the militia. That's what the amendment was about. That's why it talks about a well-regulated militia.

If one is an originalist, one cannot say that this amendment should confer individuals the right to own guns for personal usage. That's not what it says nor what was intended.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you seen the supporting documents that other legislatures passed during the time period that clarifies the language? It's quite clear that the Anti-Federalists, who the 2nd amendment was designed to placate, where concerned about individual members of the militia's right to own guns. And since when does individualist mean "not-regulated"? If we acknowledge an individual originalist right to own guns, does it necessarily follow that those rights can't be amended according to societal rules? Because arguing that is frankly false on its face.

Re: Clearest and Most Lucid Explanation I Have Found...
 

[ QUOTE ]

He's wrong about "the people." The people were the miltia. [ QUOTE ]


The argument about militias is fairly moot. If the courts somehow found that you needed to be in a militia in order to own a gun, then the people win again unless you think it's wise to let the government get to define "militia"? (hint: not wise). After that, the gun store IS the militia, you see how that would work right?

natedgg

Re: Clearest and Most Lucid Explanation I Have Found...
 

[ QUOTE ]

He's wrong about "the people." The people were the miltia.


I think he said so here:

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands


[/ QUOTE ]

To me, its ldo.

Fred Thompson in Paradise
 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...show-paradise/

Thompson was a hit with James Hill, 65, from Summerville. "It's absolutely important to come to gun shows," Hill said. Thompson, he said, wins his support because he's strong on Second Amendment gun ownership rights. "He's right where our strength is."

Anthony DiPaolo, 22, said he wasn't ready to settle on a presidential candidate yet, but said he'd narrowed his field to three Republicans — Thompson, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. "I like Fred Thompson's stance on firearms," he said. "I don't want to see anymore assaults on my Second Amendment rights."

Funny, I hadn't heard Thompson's stand on the militia. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Fred Thompson in Paradise
 

God I hate people. (Anthony, 22) Rudy Giuliani has been one of the leading gun control advocates of the past 20 years. Mitt Romney believes gun control laws keep us safe, blah blah blah. Fred Thompson actually has a good record on 2nd amendment rights, as do Huckabee and Paul. To support Giuliani and Romney when this is a big issue for you, ugh. At least he didn't include McCain.

Re: Fred Thompson in Paradise
 

Oh man, Anthony over there seems to have it narrowed down to the top 3 front runners. He likes thompson's stance on firearms, I wonder how he feels about Rudy's? Well, I'll wait for the media to tell him what to feel about it, and then get an answer from him, as I doubt he has one on his own.

Re: Fred Thompson in Paradise
 

I know enough about the law and the leanings of the court to recognize that the issue is close enough to go either way. My bet, though, is that the court will construe the right to bear arms to be a personal one.

But there isn't enough discussion about the actual practical impact of such a decision. Even if the right is deemed to be personal, the court will undoubtedly condone reasonable restrictions, just as they permit reasonable restrictions of various other rights, like the right to free speech.

More to the point, I doubt that many laws will actually be affected. Perhaps the court will invalidate the DC law, which is one of the most restrictive in the nation. But regulations about registering, etc, certainly will remain. So will most criminal laws.

The biggest impact, in my view, would be political. If the court outlines certain standards that must be met to uphold a law concerning guns, we could see a rash of attempts at new legislation. In that scenario, there will be a constant tension and debate between those who put a priority on law enforcement types and those who put a priority on gun ownership.

Anyone care to speculate which party will benefit the most from that debate?

Re: Fred Thompson in Paradise
 

Cliff Notes:

Andy is very very wrong, gets PWNed allot, and is intentionally obtuse throughout. Shocking from a poster who I frequently disagree with but respect for his honesty.

Re: Clearest and Most Lucid Explanation I Have Found...
 

[ QUOTE ]
He's wrong about "the people." The people were the miltia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, if as you believe, the people were indeed the militia, then the right to keep and bear clause is intended to apply to everyone, since everyone is in the militia.

Q.E.D., I believe.

Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
 

The Deal

Anyone that has ever cared to look, realizes that the issue of whether or not the second amendment implies a restricted collective or individual right, is readily apparent in the linguistics of the day.