No, you have no problem interpreting the amendment the one particular way because that's what you want to interpret.

Granted, it's my interpretation as well, but as written, it is easily interpreted the other way as well. Hence my statements.

If it were so clear, it would be no issue. It would say "person" and/or leave out words like "well regulated militia" or hell, even if it was broken into two sentences.... Nah, it's vague, and scholars even agree it's poorly written.


The Second Amendment, as written, is so vague that it renders it easily interpretable either one or the other way.

Trust me, I wish it was clear, trust me I do, but it's not.

The ACLU wants that? Got any specific cases to show?

from their website: "The ACLU is a strong defender of the right of religious organizations and individuals to express their religious beliefs in public. The ACLU is opposed, however, to the government sponsoring, endorsing, promoting, or financing religious symbols. The government has no right or authority to decide whose religious symbols should be promoted and whose should be ignored."


What do you find wrong with that? And it seems they want to save taxpayers money. Are you against that too?

"The ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals."

Hum, you got specifics on how they line their pockets?

There, fixed it for you.

Yes, you've stated your position re: vagueness, and I've posted voluminous references to the contrary. Further, since we have the writings of those who in fact wrote the amendment and then saw it ratified, which supports my position, and yours by your statement, 100% of the time, without a single person involved with the Constitution stating that the Second Amendment means other than what my understanding of it is, you'll have to counter their words with some other view. Noteworthy is the fact that the whole idea of vagueness in the Second Amendment is a 20th century construct.

And, last, the best evidence of all is the fact that there are over 100 million gun owners in America who own more than 600 milliion firearms of all types. That's what you call irrefutable empirical evidence.

You may, of course, continue to see the Second Amendment as vague; but I understand it and so do millions of others in America.

No, you posted numerous references to the one of two interpretations that legal scholars and the like adhere to.

And no, if 100 million gun owners in America is "proof" that the clause is clear, then there would be no ban of guns in places like DC and Chicago.

Most do see the Second Amendment as vague, but embrace one of the two interpretations, and I am one. You "understand" the one of the two interpretations, and that's cool, but it still doesn't mean the amendment is clear as written.

That's a blatant fallacy.

You assume that all lawyers and judges are willing to discern the clear meaning of a law. History has proven repeatedly that judges are quite capable of "interpreting" a law in whatever manner suites their personal politics. This includes "interpreting" certain laws to be vague when clear, and others to be clear when intentionally vague.

If the Chicago gun ban made it to the Supreme Court, I am quite certain they would be overturned. The thing is, whenever someone is charged under the bans and there is any indication that it will be challenged, the charges are mysteriously dropped. Therefore, they remain unchallenged outside of Cook County. Cite me one case where these bans have made it to federal court.

Please post references to the "other argument" you've mentioned. Limitation, must not be found on a gun control web site such as the Brady-Hand Gun Control, Inc. or Violence Policy Center.

It's as fallacious as Fastpat's assertion that the best evidence of all is the fact that there are over 100 million gun owners in America who own more than 600 milliion firearms of all types means the clause is clear.

Miss, did you read the grammatical breakdown at the link pat posted?

It seems you did not.

The second amendment enumerates numerous rights, hence it's duality.

"A well regulated militia, being neccesary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It says A) the Framers recognize a STATES right to a well regulated militia, and B) the PEOPLES right to keep and bear arms.

What's more, the militia act CLEARLY states that any and all individuals mustering for service in the unorganized militia must show up with "appropriate military arms for the day, supplied by themselves."

Therefore in reality US law REQUIRES you to be armed should you ever be called up for service in the unorganized militia.

"Shall" is legalese for MUST. So "shall not be infringed" means MUST NOT be infringed. "The people" means the whole body of the people in every instance in which it is used in the US constitution/BoR.

Even in court, where it's john doe vs the people, it is only the state that represents the people, the term the people still means EXACTLY the same thing- the whole body of the people.

There is no grey area.

Don't forget their love of eminent domain powers for the government.

Cause that one really advanced the cause of liberty in this nation....or not. :(

You mean like this.

10/18/2005
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced today that it is representing tavern owner Cheng "Terry" Tan, who is fighting the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency's attempt to take his restaurant by eminent domain.

Yep. Like i said Steve, i support the ACLU's mission.

And kudos to them for taking it up, because SCOTUS recent interpretation of the Eminent domain powers of Gov't is outright idiocy.

Yep. The ACLU fights for our liberties. Sometimes their clients are not very savory, but it should really be the fundamental issue we look at and support.

Sometimes the ACLU fights for our liberties. That's why i said i support their mission, as opposed to necessarily supporting them.

Because let's face it, sometimes the ACLU behaves as if it is governed by a retarded crack whore. Still and all, we are better off with it, than without it.

Hun, did you miss the "It's one of two interpretations because it's so vague?"

That's this guy's opinion. That doesn't mean there's no "grey" area.

This opinion also recognizes the FRAMERS intention.

From the ABA website

http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/fall99humanrights/blek.html

History tells us that the Second Amendment is based on the colonist’s fear of the military forces sent by King George III to compel obedience to cruel and burdensome laws and taxes. Federalist James Madison drafted a Bill of Rights for presentation at the first Congress. His draft of the Second Amendment was ultimately restructured into its present form in order to place greater emphasis on the militia purpose in dealing with the right to keep and bear arms. Ironically, the New Hampshire convention suggested far broader language—that being: "Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion." It is indeed significant that our first Congress rejected this broad language in order to adopt the present version with its more restrictive language.



I"m not going to argue for gun control because I don't believe in gun control. I"m just tired of you guys and your "i'm right and superior" attitude over this vague clause claiming it's "clear" when it's not, that can be interpreted either way.

So in the interest of full disclosure...

You work for a law firm CC, correct?

Does it take cases from the ACLU?

Oh, hell no.

We're a blue-chip, high profile, take on rich-ass high profile corporate clients firm. Antitrust, bankruptcy, litiation, corporate, IP, etc.

Though we took a couple of famous criminal cases for exposure...

The ABA isn't representative of much, only one in seven lawyers are members. It's notoriously leftwing in outlook, worse than the ACLU by quite a bit. The references I posted are, by and large, by law school professors.

Oh give me a f#cking break. Any opposing viewpoint of yours will not be mete with the merits of the argument, but with some stupid bull***** like "leftwing" or "socialist" or some lameass friggin invalid excuse to the merits of the argument. Try addressing the merits of the argument for a change instead of pathetic lameass invalid excuses to disregard the argument.

Just admit it, no source will be "acceptable" to you unless it's on a gun supporting site.

It's called a biased view on your part...and your biased viewpoint doesn't make the clause clear.

I've posted references in depth that appeared in scholarly journals, mostly law journals. These references of course, support the only viable position re: the Second Amendment, the position I hold. Those favoring the "Collective rights" position, the one wherein you must be a militia member to have a gun and can only use it in that regard, have virtually no supporting documentation, and what little is available, again, is authored by anti-self defense lobbyists. Still, you've an opportunity to prove me wrong.

If you'll just do the research of the opposing view, and post it here, we can get that in depth "opposing view" literature you've mentioned several times.