Countering Scalia on the right to defend your home

Email Print posted by callisto 06/27/2008 08:05:42 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Just focusing in on the Amendment, nothing else.

Everyone focuses on the "Militia"-part, but what about the "being necessary to the security of a free State"-part?


The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that you can bear arms to protect your home, it says you can bear arms to protect the security and freedom of a state.

nice read http://newsblogs.chicagotri bune.com/vox_pop/2008/06/re peal-the-2nd.html

in any case, the proof is in the pudding http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/List_of_countries_by_fire arm-related_death_rate#List _of_countries

keep blasting yourselfs away like you're still living in Frontier Times, if everyone gets shot there'll no longer be gun violence, I just hope I won't get gunned down next time I'm in the US

< Paul and Frank on internet gambling - regulating moral behaviour | Lamar Alexander needs to go! >
 Display:
Countering Scalia on the right to defend your home | 12 comments (12 topical, 0 hidden)
Grammar matters (none / 0)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Let's substitute a couple terms and see what happens:

A well nourished Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and work farms, shall not be infringed.

Would that mean that only a state militia may own farms? Would that mean that an individual may only own and work a farm in the service of a militia? No. That would protect the private ownership and use of farms.

The Second Amendment was clearly written to protect private ownership and use of firearms. Justice Scalia got this one right.

by Twba on 07/03/2008 11:00:07 AM EST

Do people swallow this nonsense? (none / 0)

You are wrong about your example above.

Replacing farms with arms would just mean that farms that were for the purpose of feeding militias are constitutionally protected, others farms are not.  At least not here.  They are protected in the prohibition on illegal search and seizure which Bush has invalidated yet you don't seem to care about that.  Which is really strange considering everything else you post but I digress.

Your failed example does highlight why you are wrong though.  The amendment can only be read as protecting those arms used in a militia.  Otherwise, why are those words there?

If they meant what you claim they meant why didn't they write:

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You want to pretend that those 14 words are all that matter and the sixteen words:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

are somehow irrelevant.  Accidentally put there by a spilled ink bottle or something.   You tell me, why are those words there?

by ProfRich on 07/03/2008 01:02:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
English (none / 0)
If they meant what you claim they meant why didn't they write:

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That is precisely what they wrote immediately after the prefatory clause that refers to the militia. How does that prefatory clause restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms? It doesn't.

The amendment can only be read as protecting those arms used in a militia.

No. It can be read the way the majority of the Supreme Court did.

by Twba on 07/04/2008 05:24:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
let me add, however... (none / 0)

... that they also never envisioned that the Bill of Rights would be applied to states - which is really what the Sup.Ct. has now done.  The SCt. has applied every other of The Rights to the States, but not this one (for obvious public policy reasons.)  So in a way, you could call this judicial activism.  Eat that Scalia, you creep.  

 Does anyone else have to take a shower after seeing/hearing that prick?

by gnomeklpto on 07/05/2008 05:34:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
crap... (none / 0)
let me add.... was supposed to be below my comment below here.  oops.

by gnomeklpto on 07/05/2008 05:37:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
First time me and ProfRich disagree (none / 0)

sorry pal, but it sounds to me like the sixteen words are a preamble (I believe in Heller they referred to it as a prefatory clause?)  and the 14 are the right (operative clause?).

 Also, there is some debate as to how many commas are supposed to be in the amendment, which could change the meaning.

 Further, maybe they thought it was for the purpose of a militia, but those arms were to be held BY THE PEOPLE.  Because that's how it worked.  "Oh, were being attacked - run home and grab your gun and meet us in the public square.  Mayor Tom, go get the keys to the town cache." OR "F* you federal government, our rights will not be abused, I'll get my gun."  

The fact is that the amendment is completely out of date, and it may be bad public policy, but the founders certainly envisioned it as an individual right.  Sometimes the rule of law sucks, but its gonna take an amendment to take away our guns. (I don't actually have one, I prefer to, you know, lock the door, but I'd like a pistol... they ARE fun to shoot.)

by gnomeklpto on 07/05/2008 05:24:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Might be taking it to the extreme... (none / 0)
... but religiously holding on to something that's more than 200 years old and that has unforseen consequences in the present, like machine guns, and not wanting to change it because of those consequences, gives me the latitude to do so:

I looked up the meaning of "to bear", it basically means to hold, nowhere does it say that it means "to fire" or to "activate", so maybe holding a gun is legal, but firing is not :)

besides it isn't defined what arms are, doesn't this also protect chemical arms then? Or is it only applicable to arms known to the Founders?

again on the nutty side: I say reclassify guns as something else, on't know "bullet propelents", this way they are no longer "arms" and they're no longer applicable to the 2nd Amendment :)

by callisto on 07/03/2008 03:04:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Good post (none / 0)

Like I said before, I don't even care that much about gun control but I find the stupid, inane arguments the gun nuts make to be unbearable.  Like twba''s arms/farms argument.  Can't they see they want their little toys so bad they are willing to buy into anything that supports that?

They're like alcoholics making up reasons why its ok to have a drink today.

Own your damn guns, I don't care, but stop pretending like you have all these unassailable arguments why there can't be any laws whatsoever about guns.  You look foolish.

by ProfRich on 07/03/2008 03:23:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Arms vs. Guns (none / 0)
I say reclassify guns as something else ...

It is quite clear from contemporaneous letters and speeches that the Framers used arms and guns interchangeably. The Second Amendment was obviously written to protect personal ownership and use of guns.

by Twba on 07/04/2008 05:26:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Where do you draw the line (none / 0)
So the framers would be referring to the things they know, how is this applicable to things like machine guns?

Or if you go the other way, where if any line would you draw then: are bazookes okay, RPG, ...?

by callisto on 07/04/2008 08:55:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Machinery (none / 0)
In 1986 federal law was amended to make it extremely difficult to purchase or possess a machine gun. The recent Supreme Court decision did not overturn the machine gun ban.

by Twba on 07/05/2008 05:32:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The insanity gets rolling (none / 0)
for those who thought that the NAR would be reasonable: dumb fucks, for trusting their judgement

after the guns in airports, the insanity keeps going:
http://www.theyoungturks.co m/story/2008/7/8/181133/467 3

by callisto on 07/08/2008 06:52:16 PM EST

Countering Scalia on the right to defend your home | 12 comments (12 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: