alexjrgreen wrote:IntLibber wrote:This is not an unsupported position of mine. He did the same thing on gun control when the supreme court issued the Heller decision. After a lifetime of legislating against the 2nd amendment and gun rights at the local, state, and federal level (he has NEVER voted for a bill that supported 2nd amendment rights, he has always voted in favor of even the most restrictive gun ban/gun control legislation), he then says "I have always supported the 2nd Amendment and agree that 'reasonable limits' are constitutional...." The devil is in the details on exactly what he thinks are "reasonable limits" vs what gun owners believe.
IntLibber wrote:I am not a republican either, I distrust them slightly less only because, unlike the democrats, they have never treated me as a threat to national security for being a law abiding gun owning american citizen.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...
1. What is your rank in the Militia?
2. Who is your Commanding Officer?
I refer you to Heller vs District of Columbia as well as Title 10 USC Section 311
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
DC v Heller:
"The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"
On June 26, 2008, by a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the federal appeals court ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated, "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals." This ruling upholds the first federal appeals court ruling ever to void a law on Second Amendment grounds.
The Court based its reasoning on the grounds:
* that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning;
* that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;
* that historical materials support this interpretation, including "analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions" at the time, the drafting history of the Second Amendment, and interpretation of the Second Amendment "by scholars, courts, and legislators" through the late nineteenth century; and
* that none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation, specifically United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), nor United States v. Miller (1939).
Alex, the last time a Brit thought he could dictate to us Americans about our ability to keep and bear, y'all got sent packing. The right to keep and bear arms was not just a preexisting right under the English Bill of Rights (a document generally nonexistent and unobserved in its native land today), though limited by some racism and religious bigotry, but thats par for the course with English of that day and age.
This is not a debate you have any hope of winning with me.
