Question about the 2nd Amendment (well regulated militia)

[Wildalaska]

A right is a natural thing that individuals possess. The right to keep and bear arms exists outside of any government entity.

Wrong. No rights at all exist outside of same being defined by government itself

WildselfevidentAlaska TM

[USAFNoDak]

Tenn Gentle:

I think you are mistaken and the BORs granted rights to both individuals and the states and the 2A granted to both.

First of all, we've already covered the error of using "grants" rather than "protects" or "secures" when talking about rights. However, what "rights" of the states are protected in the Bill of Rights? I think it protects some of their powers, but mostly the Bill of Rights is a laundry list of no-no's for the Central Government in order that the rights of the people shall be protected. It tells the Federal government what they CANNOT do. This inherently protects our "individual rights" as well as protecting "the powers" of the states.

The 10th amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I'm not sure I see any mention of states "rights" in any of the BOR.

[USAFNoDak]

Wrong. No rights at all exist outside of same being defined by government itself

Not according to the founding principles upon which this nation was formed. There is a right to life for every human, and governments should be formed to protect that right. Rights may not be exercised because of bad government, but the right still exists.

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by Wildalaska

No rights at all exist outside of same being defined by government itself

Shame on you Ken! Locke, Hutcheson, Hegel, et al, would disagree most vociferously. Dare you dis the enlightenment?

Tennessee, Ken was baiting me.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
The Second Amendment itself grants the right specifically only to the people, but that right was granted by extension to the militia because it was composed of the people.

I think you are mistaken and the BORs granted rights to both individuals and the states and the 2A granted to both. I think there were two purposes at work when the 2A was written and the militia of the states were one and the individuals RKBA was the other. Heller clarified this and that is what Al meant when he said the miltia was no longer an issue with the individual right. I think you are trying to in a round about way come back to your views of the militia today which I thought we weren't going to rehash?

This has nothing to do with my views on the militia. None of the amendments in the Bill of Rights guarantees any rights to the states. Amendment Ten mentions the state in that certain powers are delegated to it, but the amendment does not guarantee them any rights. Amendments One through Eight, in fact, specifically guarantee rights to the people rather than the states. The only rights guaranteed to the states in the Bill of Rights are guaranteed by extension through the people as it would be impossible to strip a state of rights such as speech, press, etc. without stripping the people of that state of their rights. No guarantee of a collective right (afterall, a guarantee of right to a state is a collective right) is necessary since an individual right extends into the collective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
So you disagree with the Judges opinion?

Do you understand the difference between dicta and law in a court opinion? His comments on terrorists were not the issue before the court and have nothing to do with the case. Webley, you have a tendency I have noticed to cherry pick comments from court cases that you think lend credence to your arguments that have no relavence to the issue. Anyway, I answered MP's question about the terrorist's threat. BTW the Nordykes lost.

I understand the difference, however since there is no precedent in law to guide us one way or the other, dicta is the best we've got. Considering the study that is typically necessary to become a judge, I take Judge Gould's interpretation more seriously than those of someone posting anonymously on the internet. With regards to cherry picking, I quote many of the same sources you do, however I typically quote more of their context so as to more fully illustrate their meaning. Also, I fail to see how quoting dicta from the case that is under discussion equates to cherry picking. I quoted this passage because it is representative of what Maestro Pistolero's question was about, a question which you answered in a very roundabout and unclear way.

Originally posted by Wildalaska

Quote:
A right is a natural thing that individuals possess. The right to keep and bear arms exists outside of any government entity.

Wrong. No rights at all exist outside of same being defined by government itself

Well, according to the Heller and Nordyke decisions, certain fundamental rights predate their enumeration by the Constitution.

[zxcvbob]

I'm just using it as an example. It would be illegal if there was not a fire and you create a panic/riot. It just shows that the right to speak freely is not absolute. We could just as easily use the example of religious ceremonies which use illicit drugs as being illegal, generally. Another good example is that you can not make threats against the President, which is also "technically" a free speech violation.

And they are punished, after the fact. And somehow this is supposed to be a justification for prior restraint against gun owners? The courts generally take a very dim view of prior restraint; it's my belief that the courts have an inherent conflict of interest in Second Amendment cases, and that's the only reason they allow it.

The entire militia clause is now a moot point. It no longer has anything to do with the RKBA, in the context the battles we are and will be engaged in.

The Supreme Court in the Miller decision would disagree with you. Arms appropriate for military service are the most 2A protected class. Scalia and Thomas seem to understand that, but it wasn't an issue in the Heller case.

[Wildalaska]

Dare you dis the enlightenment?

I dare, I dare.

The only way to have a right is to define a right. The only way to define a right is to have a consensus on what the right is and/or enforce it. the only way to have a consensus on a right and/or enforce same is via a polity.

Thats why I no longer can avail myself of the ius primae noctis

WildheyalwhatsupAlaska TM

[vranasaurus]

Nowhere in the constitution is it written "The right of the people to form or serve in a state sponsored militia shall not be infringed."

That being the case why are we talking about the militia?

Some people like to get this grand idea that the an unorganized militia is some insanely powerful tool for fighting tyranny and that if need be they will grab their "SHTF" gun and take on the man.

If you want to understand the effectiveness of an unorganized militia in modern warfare you need to look at iraq and afghanistan. Sure they harrass American Soldiers and kill them but these unorganized militias suffer casualties in such higher numbers than we do its not even comparable. This doesn't even take into account that the American military hasn't even inflicted casualties to the fullest extent possible.

Many people think they have the skills, knowledge, and equipment to form part of a "militia". But the truth is the leadership, tactical training, and military equipment necessary (your AR15 with a train yard worth of rails and equipment doesn't count) to be an effective military force just isn't there.

Some people need to get this glorious vision of some kind of revolutionary, post apocalyptic world where they are the leader of some militia out of their heads.

The fact that the original concept of the militia is dead does not in anyway diminish or restrict the RKBA.

[maestro pistolero]

I would talk to your state government then and see why they won't raise one. They can if they wish. Why do you think they don't?

For the obvious reason that we are not presently in a crisis that warrants it.

Do you contend that they wouldn't call up armed citizens if there was cataclysmic collapse sufficient to overwhelm the professionals?

Would the state government let genocide proceed rather than call up an armed citizenry because of a deficit in training?

[alloy]

Call it a militia or not, an armed citizenry is something. It's a mexican standoff, in and of itself it's a deterrant, it functions without functioning, and it never needs to organize...because it has the arms. It just is. It is either a thorn in the side of unforseen, unchecked power, or it isn't...
It has and does work, regardless of what you want to call it. The proof that it works, is that we are all still able to be armed for our personal protection.

[stargazer65]

The only way to have a right is to define a right. The only way to define a right is to have a consensus on what the right is and/or enforce it. the only way to have a consensus on a right and/or enforce same is via a polity.

This consensus was determined in eternity past by the Trinity (See Genesis 1) not by a government entity.

Sorry, I think we're getting way off topic.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The 2nd Amendment and Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma are not mentioned in Genesis. That is a prohibited Starfleet research project that is probably an AOW or destructive device.

This thread is started to go in the dumper. Hint.

A philosophical discussion of whether rights exist as an abstract principle independent of humanity, such as the Pythogorean principle, or are a social consenus formed by interactions of learning, culture and our evolutionary past is fun but can get deep.

Opinions of rights and the natural course of acceptable behavior changes as civilizations rise and fall. We have a set that appear with some social history. Other cultures have different views. Now isn't that an insight.

What does it have to do with militia? I think Al answered that point.

[vranasaurus]

The 2nd Amendment and Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma are not mentioned in Genesis. That is a prohibited Starfleet research project that is probably an AOW or destructive device.

[color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color], over!

[USAFNoDak]

[color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color], over!

I'd say this thread is over. It's run it's course.

[Al Norris]

What Glenn was trying to tactfully say, was that the thread has run its course.