Print

[Reaper527]

QUOTE

- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a sweeping ban on handguns in the nation's capital violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

sections a little dead, so even though this is a few days old, figured i'd post it. what do you guys think?

personally, i think its a shame that this was only a 5-4 ruling, as the ban was obviously unconstitutional, and should have had a 9-0 ruling striking down the ban. (even though realistically 6-3 or 7-2 would have been more likely).

[lordvader129]

QUOTE(Reaper527 @ Jun 30 2008, 01:16 PM)

personally, i think its a same that this was only a 5-4 ruling, as the ban was obviously unconstitutional

i agree, however i can also see where the contention came in, its the same thats been flying around forever

the 2nd amendment refers to a militia, so does the right to bear arms apply to all citizens, or just those who are members of a militia? of course deciding only militia can possess guns raises a whole host of other questions, such as what constitues a militia, lol

[Reaper527]

when looking at the times it was written in though, it is obviously meant to be an individual right. also, as you said, militia isn't commonplace, and a solid definition would be needed. if the 2nd amendment was deemed as a militia right, there would be a bit of a catch-22, as you can't have a militia without guns, and you can't have guns without a militia.

the whole idea of gun control never made sense to me anyways. the logic of "I'm going to make guns illegal so criminals will stop breaking the law" or expecting criminals to say "I'm going to break every law except this one" just seems incomprehensible. all a ban could do is make it so innocent people can't have guns for hunting, sport, or self defense.

[spiffyville]

As I remember interpreting it. It was implemented so that in the even the government turned against the people. The people had means to turn against the government.

[damam]

this ruling actually really scared me.  The fact that there are 4 judges out there that seem to believe that the bill of rights is merely a list of suggestions for governement to follow is alarming to say the least.

Ginsberg and Breyer were the most alarming in that they both agreed with interpretation of the constitution in that it did guarantee the rights of individual to have guns, but did not really care.  Souter, as usual is just an idiot.

@lordvader
does it really make sense to you that the government would see a need to ensure that the government has the right to bear arms?  Thats essentially what your interpretation is saying, and it completely flips the purpose of the Bill of Rights on its head (a point made by the wicked witch Ruth Bater Ginsberg).  

I fully believe that the first and second amendmendment are the most important guarantees of freedom for future generations.  If government can take either one of those away, the chances of a successful revolution become infinitely harder.

Now all we need to do is get some good rulings on the 4 (search and seizure) and 5 (eminent domain) amendements.

[lordvader129]

QUOTE(damam @ Jul 8 2008, 01:25 PM)

@lordvader
does it really make sense to you that the government would see a need to ensure that the government has the right to bear arms?  Thats essentially what your interpretation is saying, and it completely flips the purpose of the Bill of Rights on its head (a point made by the wicked witch Ruth Bater Ginsberg).  

only if you think a militia is part of the government, which is isnt (thats military, theres a difference)

but either way, i agree that the 2nd amendment protects individuals right to bear arms, im just saying i can see how other interpretations are possible

[damam]

so if they had banned the individual right to bear arms, and said it only pertained to the militia's - they could have then banned militias without violating the 2nd amendement and thereby gotten rid of guns all together.

[Reaper527]

QUOTE(damam @ Jul 9 2008, 12:15 PM)

so if they had banned the individual right to bear arms, and said it only pertained to the militia's - they could have then banned militias without violating the 2nd amendement and thereby gotten rid of guns all together.

doesn't the 2nd say we have a right to bear arms, and to a militia? (paraphrased, but i thought the 2nd gave us both)

[damam]

QUOTE(Reaper527 @ Jul 9 2008, 09:30 AM)

doesn't the 2nd say we have a right to bear arms, and to a militia? (paraphrased, but i thought the 2nd gave us both)

i am not totally sure.  I believe that the first amendment gives us the right to a citizen militia, freedom of assembly.

they actually talk about on pages 22 - 28 or so
http://www.scotusblo.../06/07-2901.pdf
essentially the concern was that we would have government sactioned militia's only.  

QUOTE

"John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.”

so the concern with the second amendment was at the individual level.  also they saw the right as a fundamental "ancient" right, and necessary for the formation of a militia.  essentially, ideally every amreican adult would own a gun and the entire population would be a militia to defend ourselves against a tyranny of our own making.

actually i really encourage you to read there decision.  It is really good.

[lordvader129]

QUOTE(damam @ Jul 9 2008, 02:30 PM)

i am not totally sure.  I believe that the first amendment gives us the right to a citizen militia, freedom of assembly.

they actually talk about on pages 22 - 28 or so
http://www.scotusblo.../06/07-2901.pdf
essentially the concern was that we would have government sactioned militia's only.  

so the concern with the second amendment was at the individual level.  also they saw the right as a fundamental "ancient" right, and necessary for the formation of a militia.  essentially, ideally every amreican adult would own a gun and the entire population would be a militia to defend ourselves against a tyranny of our own making.

actually i really encourage you to read there decision.  It is really good.

well thats why i said it would raise qwuestions as to what constitutes a militia, IE can a single person declare themselves a militia, or does it have to be a corporation like blackwater international (which of course then brings the issue needing government approval to form a militia, which as you say, defeats the purpose of the second amendment)