+1

Grammarians are quite stodgy. While there's been considerable change in the usage of English, there hasn't been much change in the formal rules of English, so I don't buy that argument.

Besides, how can a person be a "strict interpretationist" (as most 2nd Amendment advocates are) and still make the argument that one has to take into account historical background/relativism? You go down that road, and you're on the way to buying into all kinds of considerations about what is and isn't historically relevant.

No, the argument that I think gives the 2A its weight, is that one definition of militia is "all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service." And since, military service is defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic, the idea that the State can regulate its militias is laughable. How can a militia secure itself against the State if its regulated by (ie, subordinate to) the State?

Regardless, if you're going to argue on a grammatical basis, against someone who argues against it on a grammatical basis, you'd better have some documentation on 18th Century grammar, or else it's just a couple of bozos doing He Says She Says.

Nope, I think you're under (literally) the Second District Court of Appeals if memory serves.

I beg to disagree. The Second Amendment's meaning is crystal clear. Only those wishing to put limits on the access to and possession of weapons attempt to read other meanings into it.

Quote:

The "one sentence" is a run-on and the commas are placed weirdly. If someone wanted to, they could interpret it as: "A well regulated militia shall not be infringed. The militia shall have the right to keep and bear arms, as it is necessary to the security of a free State."

A full parsing of the Second Amendment by a grammar expert is at THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT, the Amendment is well written and very clear.

Quote:

I personally don't interpret it that way. Like all things in the Constitution, one has to bear in mind that it was not written by a team of lawyers and grammar experts.

Actually, it was written by men educated in both grammar and the law. In fact, they were better educated than most lawyers today, frequently knew both Greek and Latin, and much more. The notion that the founders were country bumpkins is bunk.

Quote:

Furthermore, I'm not sure DC is better off without a gun ban. Most of its residents are gun-fearing liberals anyway, so nothing will change much. The criminals will still be the only ones with guns, but now they'll be legal. Some of them anyway. I don't really see that as an improvement.

That's about to change, in a positive way.

First off, it's

AMENDMENT, not 'ammendment'. Notice, only TWO m's in there.

And this is great news! It's basically saying people DO have the right, protected by the Constitution, to own firearms for self defense.

As I've heard sentiments on my other favorite forum (gun related), the only way to change this would be a SCOTUS hearing... and it would probably rule the same way.

I think both sides are afraid of a SCOTUS ruling, because whichever way it goes, it will be total victory for whichever side wins.

Our side - law after law would have to be ruled unconstitutional. Their side - they push bans and licensing until it's near impossible to own a firearm for any purpose.

That's about one of the least intelligent sentiments I've heard. And I've heard it before.

'criminals will still be the only ones with guns, but now they'll be legal.'

Don't you know it's already illegal for convicted felons to own firearms? One doesn't need to ban firearms for EVERYBODY to make it illegal for FELONS to have them.

You're right about the liberals, tho. They wouldn't likely own a gun for any reason, whatsoever. They'd probably rather rely on their belief that people are all good, they're just misunderstood.



Bottom line: Law abiding citizens should have the choice to own and carry firearms to protect themselves, as well as for any other legal purpose they so choose.

There are people afraid of a Second Amendment ruling, and want to wait until the SCOTUS is "loaded right", meaning full of reliable Justices.

My personal position is that it won't matter if the SCOTUS rules that the Second Amendment does not protect the personal right to be armed with any arm. The right will exist regardless. And, unlike any other group in America, gun owners have the tools to protect their intrinsic right to be armed themselves. Government is not needed.

The SCOTUS has refused to grant Certiorari on a Second Amendment case since 1938 because they're judicial cowards. As you state, a ruling congruent with the Second Amendment language nullifys all federal gun control laws, and most state gun control laws. Further, since the Second Amendment has no limits; such a ruling would nullify all prohibitions on ownership of anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft weapons, machine guns, artillery pieces, and in the words of Tench Cox (a founder) "every terrible instrument of war." This idea scares the SCOTUS "poopless".

You understood my point, yet still chose to insult me? :confused:

Whatever you or I would choose to do is beside the point. Bottom Line: The status quo ain't gonna change much because (I'll boldface this for you) NEARLY ALL DC RESIDENTS WON'T CHOOSE TO OWN GUNS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR LEGALITY.

The legality of felons owning guns is also beside the point. Because as has been said many times, the baddies will own the guns anyway.

FINALLY

Let's get that precident in Chicago.

Btw, I can't believe I'm arguing about this. I'm FOR individual gun ownership!

Wedge issues bug me, because so often it comes down to "IS NOT!!" "IS SO!!" "NUH UH!!" "I"M TELLING!!"

Just acknowlediging that the opposing viewpoint isn't totally idiotic might let us get to a compromise. I think that's true for a lot of emotional issues. And yes, they're emotional issues. I happen to agree with most here on this issue, but I wonder how I got here. I grew up with firearms and I'm comfortable around them. Emotionally, I know that guns are safe when used properly. So I approach this topic already knowing what conclusion I'll come to. I suspect most here are in the same boat. You just KNOW the Constitution agrees with your gut, so you go out and find arguments to support that.

Put another way, we're all impartial on this topic, and our opinions (even when backed by good arguments) can't really be trusted fully.

I asked this very question to Wayne LaPierre myself about a year ago. He said he was not at all worried about the NRA becoming a victim of its own success, as there are so many other battles to always fight. DC's gun ban was not really their top priority. CCW and Castle Doctrine were far higher, as well as mandatory minimums for gun criminals. There's a LOT of work to do in many other states.

Acknowledging an opposing position on the right to be armed isn't possible. The reason for this is that this is a right, and as such isn't subject to arguments of either utility or the democratic process. You can't, nor can I, negotiate the rights of either myself, yourself, or others to be either compromised or banned.

Essentially, there is no valid opposing viewpoint in this area. That's but one of the essential values of a right.

Yes, I've heard the NRA make the same points. However, you cannot get around the fact that the NRA has been instrumental in writing nearly every federal gun law, and not a few state gun laws, written int he 20th century. Their initial effort was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which the NRA wrote in its' entirety.

And, just to stop some commentary, I'm not only an NRA Life Member, I'm a life member of several other pro-self defense rights organizations.

Here's what the anti-self defense Brady Handgun Control, Inc. group is saying. Note, that they think that a right is subject to democratically decided access. The "people" want your rights taken away, then that's okay with them. Also notice that as usual, there is no gun control law with which the Brady Handgun Control, Inc. will be satisfied, or opposed to.

Mmmy baddddd. My grammmmmar is mmmmuch bbbbetter than mmmmy sppppppellllllling

Here's the decision in .pdf format.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

Jim,

All the black boys have guns, its a known fact.

Lets? Well being a lifetime NRA member is a start. Are you?

Show your colors then we can move on...

The court made a sound ruling on this one. Although I wonder what the dissenting judge was thinking...

"Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state."

Is she implying that the other Amendments do not apply in DC either?

Please tell me more of your facts, i feel ignorant today.

Joe, put down the shovel, no need to keep digging your hole deeper. We know you're a flaming bigot. :rolleyes: