Home | Community | Message Board


Vaposhop
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Anonymous

for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment
    #2250819 - 01/18/04 05:50 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

the meanings of the actual court rulings weren't particularly relevant to the discussion in the other thread, so i've started this thread to examine the actual court rulings.

U.S. v. Cruikshank-1876

this supreme court case is usually cited out of context by wishfully thinking anti-gunners. consider an example from the other thread:

U.S. v. Cruikshank-1876, The right to bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution" or by the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court says restricts the power of Congress--but not the states--to regulate firearms.

this is a deliberate misinterpretation of the court's decision. of course the second amendment does not grant the individual the right to own a weapon... it only protects that right, which is pre-existing. this is exactly what was actually found in US. v. Cruikshank.

the statement, in context:

"The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government... It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection... The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed"

US v. Cruikshank (1876)... (emphasis mine).

so here we see how the statement has been taken entirely out of context and misinterpreted by the media, anti-gun people, and even judges in recent rulings.

the real meaning of the statements in the ruling: the second amendment does not establish a right for citizens to keep and bear arms. rather, that right is pre-exisiting. the only thing the constitution does is prohibit the government from infringing upon it.

another supreme court veiw upholding the individual right to keep and bear arms was expressed in the case of Presser v. People of Illinois (1886):

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view [the Second Amendment] prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government."

(emphasis mine)

U.S. v. Miller (1939)

here is another famous case that is misquoted and misunderstood. the ruling found:

1) The National Firearms Act was not an unconstitutional usurpation of police power reserved to the states.

2) "In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length,' which is the subject of regulation and taxation by the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said the the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, or that the statute violates such constitutional provision."

3) "It is not within judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

4) "The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia."

what the ruling is always referring to is the weapon itself, not the person wielding it. what it says is that a weapon with no military use is not protected by the second amendment. nowhere does it say that the person owning a weapon must be a part of the military to own weapons. apparently they were also ignorant of the fact that short-barrelled shotguns were used extensively during trench warfare in WW I. regardless, the court ruling does not in any way imply that a person must be in the military to own weapons, only that the weapons they own must have some military application.

perhaps even more damning to the anti-gunners (and as such, a part they leave out), is the courts findings on the definition of the word "militia":

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

what the miller court essentially found was that private gun ownership was protected by the second amendment, and that private citizens constitute "the milita", however, the weapons they may own must have some kind of military efficacy.

a case cited in the other thread:

Eckert v. City of Philadelphia-1973, 6th Circuit Court, "it must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the U.S. Constitution."

the next sentence in the ruling is a reference to the U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) ruling, which they clearly took out of context.

Lewis v. U.S. (1980)

the court found that prohibiting a convicted felon from buying a firearm was not a violation of his second amendment rights. fair enough. it said nothing about the rest of us.

the next case:

Quilici V. Village of Morton Grove (1982)

here the court concluded that handgun ownership was not protected because it wasn't linked to membership in the militia. US v. Miller was referenced. again, this is a misinterpretation of an earlier case. the ruling of US v. Miller, found that the "militia" "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that guns that guns with no military application are not protected. handguns have a military application, and all able-bodied males are part of the "militia". yet another easily debunked "accidental" misinterpretation of earlier court rulings.

U.S. v. Hale (1992)

another case which (deliberately?) misinterpreted US v. Miller and concluded that on the basis of its findings, gun ownership was not an individual right.


here we can see what's going on. older supreme court rulings have affirmed the right of individuals to own guns. in contemporary times, judges have "interpreted" these rulings to mean something opposite of what they did, so as to hand down the particular rulings which they wanted to hand down. every single modern court case i have found nullifying the second amendment has cited either cruikshank or miller cases, and they have gotten the meaning entirely wrong. it doesn't take alot to figure out what was meant in the cruikshank or miller cases... the texts are available to anyone who cares to look.

the courts in the US have not "consistantly ruled" against the private-gun ownership interpretation of the second amendment. on the contrary, the supreme court has ruled that the second amendment guarantees an individual right to own weapons, especially when those weapons have a military use, and moreso, that the right to keep and bear arms is not something granted by the second amendment, but is preexisting.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,186
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: for alex123: supreme court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2250834 - 01/18/04 06:10 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

the texts are available to anyone who cares to look



Therein lies the problem.

Nice piece of work though. Very nice.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2252494 - 01/19/04 12:45 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

What source did you get this from mush? I'd like to know the source before I consider worth reading.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2252517 - 01/19/04 12:56 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

What source did you get this from mush? I'd like to know the source before I consider worth reading.

the texts of the rulings. i thought i made that clear. they are available to the public and you can find them online very easily.


Edited by Anonymous (01/19/04 01:06 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,186
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2253187 - 01/19/04 05:18 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

You made it quite clear.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2253458 - 01/19/04 06:31 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Good job on those findings! I think we are all anticipating "Alex123"'s next comments.


--------------------
Opinions are like assholes; everyone needs one or else they'd explode


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,186
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2255033 - 01/20/04 05:07 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Let's keep this up top until PinocchiALPO responds.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,186
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2256800 - 01/20/04 06:49 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Bumped for PinocchiAL


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2256866 - 01/20/04 07:08 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
Bumped for PinocchiAL




Does "Alex123" have a hard time responding to factual articles,or is he maybe away for a few days? Odd that his input seemed to stop just as soon as the obvious objectivity of the inital source was disclosed.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2256870 - 01/20/04 07:09 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

hehe...

something tells me rono's not gonna like this. here's what i'll do... i'll link this thread to the other one, and next time someone comes out claiming that the second amendment doesn't preserve the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms, we can just search for it. as much as i'd like to see alex admit wrong and possibly reconsider his position in light of all the contradicting evidence, i think we both know it ain't gonna happen.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,186
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2256875 - 01/20/04 07:10 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

You'll get used to it. It's his SOP.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,186
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2256886 - 01/20/04 07:13 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

I think Rono shouldn't have a problem as long as there are no flames.

I used to think he'd never admit error also, but to his credit, he did so ONCE that I'm aware of. Of course it took a LONG time. I'd guess nearly a year.

EDIT: Yup, a year.

Of course even then he never used the "w" word.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Edited by luvdemshrooms (01/20/04 07:29 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2258971 - 01/21/04 06:17 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)

as i'd like to see alex admit wrong

What am I wrong about mush? Expert legal judgements in your own country?

You have every right to believe whatever you like, and the legal system has the right to call your opinion horseshit and make their own judgements. Don't get angry at me because the legal experts don't agree with you.

someone comes out claiming that the second amendment doesn't preserve the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms, we can just search for it

My, you are getting your panties in a twist over this. The legal system in America doesn't buy your theories. Instead of complaining about it, why not try and understand where you're going wrong in your "interpretation?"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2258973 - 01/21/04 06:19 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)

But luvdemlies, we're still waiting for you to admit George Bush went underground on Sep 11.

Or accept there were no WMD in Iraq.

Lets not hold our breath eh?  :lol:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2259190 - 01/21/04 10:36 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)


You have every right to believe whatever you like, and the legal system has the right to call your opinion horseshit and make their own judgements. Don't get angry at me because the legal experts don't agree with you.


i believe i have shown you quite clearly how the "legal experts" have willfully misinterpreted the meanings of both the constitution and past supreme court rulings. if you want to continue believing both that the second amendment doesn't preserve the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, and that the "legal experts" who agree with you are correct, i suppose that's fine. at least you don't vote here.

Instead of complaining about it, why not try and understand where you're going wrong in your "interpretation?"

why don't you try explaining it to me then? please show me why i am wrong and the judges you are referring to are correct. i've shown you quite clearly how absurd it is to "interpret" the 2nd amendment as not guaranteeing the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms, and you have given no rebuttal. i've even shown you statements from actual supreme court cases affirming the second amendment's message, and you have given me no rebuttal. i've shown you how these older rulings have been misinterpreted in contemporary times, and you have provided no rebuttal. so far nothing you have said has gone unrebuked, and everything i've said has.

the actual text of the second amendment, the commentary by the men who signed it, as well as their contemporaries; the state constitutions which mirror the second amendment, and 3 supreme court cases affirm that the second amendment is intended to preserve the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms. the only ones saying otherwise are you, the anti-gun rights lobby, and some judges who can easily be shown as having misinterpreted older court rulings.

your entire argument here has been based on nothing more than a blind appeal to authority. if you want to continue believing as you do, fine, but this thread sure has become a shining example of your stubbornness and inability to ever admit wrong.

here's 2 questions for you:

1. do you believe that the modern courts are correct in their interpretation of the second amendment as not preserving the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms? why?

2. do you believe that these modern courts have correctly interpreted the supreme court cases they cite as precedence for their rulings, namely the cruikshank and miller cases? why?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2259359 - 01/21/04 12:17 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

why don't you try explaining it to me then?

What good is there in me explaining it? It's the judges and legal experts you need to read. You can find that on plenty of websites.

shining example of your stubbornness and inability to ever admit wrong

What on earth are you on about mush? I'm simply telling you what the judges say. Nothing stubborn about it at all. If they say anything different we can talk about that.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2259368 - 01/21/04 12:24 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

It's the judges and legal experts you need to read. You can find that on plenty of websites.

i have read it, i am familiar with it, and i am saying that they are wrong. i've shown why they are wrong in both their interpretation of the second amendment and previous supreme court rulings. you are saying that they are right. you have not shown why they are right. your argument is nothing more than an appeal to authority, and what's more, this authority is easily shown as being mistaken and incorrect in its conclusions.

I'm simply telling you what the judges say.

you've done more than that. you've agreed with them. do you think that they are right in their interpretations? why?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2259405 - 01/21/04 12:41 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

i've shown why they are wrong in both their interpretation of the second amendment and previous supreme court rulings

No, you've given me your pretty shaky opinion.

do you think that they are right in their interpretations? why?

Because the second amendment states in utterly clear terms "THE MILITIA". I don't think the founding fathers were so stupid they couldn't express themselves clearly. If they'd meant "Everyone can own a gun" they would have said that.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2259717 - 01/21/04 02:24 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
If they'd meant "Everyone can own a gun" they would have said that.



"... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
- U.S. Constitution, 2nd Amendment. Pretty obvious to someone who isn't blinded by political dogma.

As far as 'The Militia,' a working understanding of the English language and the concept of 'subordinate clause' would suffice to understand the sentence structure. Apparently, this is beyond your grasp or out of character for you to be honest about.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2259768 - 01/21/04 02:35 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
... your entire argument here has been based on nothing more than a blind appeal to authority.



Don't forget, dictators love this way of thinking. It is what made Nazi Germany and The Soviet Union wonderful killing machines of their own citizens. It is what fueled the Catholic Church in the Inquisition. It is a defining element of the character of the Vichy Government supporters who were traitors to their own people and their own nation. Boot lickers everywhere base their idolatrous power worship on it. Free thinkers and free men are different, that's why we are despised by all 'right' thinking people.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
dee_N_ae 7,949 131 09/19/02 03:08 PM
by francisco
* Couric asks Palin to name a supreme court case she disagrees with --- 90 seconds of hilarity ensues
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )
supernovasky 9,207 199 10/08/08 12:56 PM
by Phred
* The 2nd Amendment Anonymous 449 2 08/03/03 12:31 AM
by Anonymous
* 2nd amendment, does it provide a personal right? Regulation of that right? Discussion of law
( 1 2 all )
johnm214 2,522 25 04/11/08 10:45 AM
by johnm214
* What does the 2nd Amendment mean? SoopaX 1,539 16 12/11/04 05:09 PM
by SoopaX
* Ayahuasca Court Case.... What are we waiting for? dr0mni 761 6 06/04/05 08:05 AM
by Psiloman
* Blind allegiance to the 2nd Amendment by Bush
( 1 2 all )
1stimer 2,249 20 09/09/04 09:35 PM
by unbeliever
* 2nd Amendment Quote MagicalMystery 294 0 10/19/05 04:28 PM
by MagicalMystery

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
6,028 topic views. 3 members, 1 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Azarius
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.059 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 24 queries.