Penn and Teller do a very good job at explaining the Second Amendment

[piezoe]

...
Too many, if not most, of our laws and regulations are written for the sake of politics and or raw control by government. Not for the sake and benefit of the populace.

I seems so. Something bad happens, an isolated instance, someone says, "there out to be a law". The next thing you know a bunch of people are saying, "there ought to be a law". And then yet another law in search of a problem is created; poorly enforced or unenforceable, ineffective, or not worth the time and cost; yet enough to drive us nuts, drain our resources and keep an ever increasing gang of lawyers employed. That's how it happens. I guess it's political in the good sense -- politicians responding to the will of the people -- but also in the very bad sense of politicians responding inarticulately and brainlessly. Too rarely do our politicians say, "wait a minute here! Do you really want to do this?" When they do say it, it is often as not for sordid reasons.

Another kind of bad law combines the worst of politics with the worst of Capitalism. The archetypal monument to hundreds, if not thousands, of such laws would be the "Wright Amendment". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Amendment

But never mind this, You and I, Lucrum, shall carry on the good fight against too many bad laws.

 

[jem]

Piezoe if you not going to be a dickhead, you should stop trying to but do others intelligence when you are wrong on almost ever issue.

Piezoe - you mean the argument about the I noticed there is not supposed to be a Federal Militia. Therefore you entire argument about the alternative meaning of the second amendment is bullshit? I saw that too. But I chose to focus on the other flaw.

 

[Scataphagos]

"...After America's disarmed, it's carte Blanche for the nazis here to do whatever the fuck they want to do to us with ZERO worries.

Which is why the 2nd Amendment is so important.

"When the government fears the people (armed), there is liberty. When the people fear the government (all arms confiscated), there is tyranny."

 

[LEAPup]

Which is why the 2nd Amendment is so important.

"When the government fears the people (armed), there is liberty. When the people fear the government (all arms confiscated), there is tyranny."

That's right. And the communist bastards, elected by ENEMIES such as the parasites, lunatics (dems), sheep, and the msm are doing every damned thing they can NOW to usher in fascism, and stuff it down our throats.

 

[LEAPup]

Scat, there's no Colorado chapter for the Watchmen of America. You and some friends should check these guys out. GREAT group of Americans!

 

[jem]

Let me rewrite this.

1. stop acting like and intellect... your arguments manifest a serious lack of analytical powers.

2. You can be sure there was more than one flaw in your argument. I focused on one, but another one was that there was no Federal Militia .

Piezoe if you not going to be a dickhead, you should stop trying to but do others intelligence when you are wrong on almost ever issue.

Piezoe - you mean the argument about the I noticed there is not supposed to be a Federal Militia. Therefore you entire argument about the alternative meaning of the second amendment is bullshit? I saw that too. But I chose to focus on the other flaw.

 

[piezoe]

Piezoe if you not going to be a dickhead, you should stop trying to but do others intelligence when you are wrong on almost ever issue.

Piezoe - you mean the argument about the I noticed there is not supposed to be a Federal Militia. Therefore you entire argument about the alternative meaning of the second amendment is bullshit? I saw that too. But I chose to focus on the other flaw.

Nope, that's not it. When you read Justice Scalia's 64 page opinion you will find that he considers the word "State" in the amendment to mean the fledgling nation, not individual States, and he refers to individual state militias as "militias" and a federally organized militia formed from state militias as an "organized militia". He uses English law and original intent to masterfully separate the right to bear and keep arms from connection to service in a militia or "organized" militia, but he acknowledges that keeping and bearing of arms facilitates (his word) the forming of militias and "organized militias". He does not find the prefratory clause restrictive.

 

[Lucrum]

Nope, that's not it. When you read Justice Scalia's 64 page opinion...

A 64 page opinion on a 27 word paragraph. A paragraph already interpreted and explained in posterity and in no uncertain terms by numerous founding fathers who were actually around at the time those 27 words were penned.

Is it any wonder why our "modern" society is so fucked up? What with such a collective aversion to both common sense and simplicity.

 

[jem]

historically the federal govt called up the state militias.
I just read washington warned on his deathbed that militia were not well trained... and two year later the U.S. formed West Point.

But, so what.

"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."

....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This was not a new idea it was based on English common law. The right to self defense and resistance to govt oppression and tyranny was seen as a natural right. Its why america was founded.

Nothing new... of course a person looking at original intent would not find the first clause restrictive.

Nope, that's not it. When you read Justice Scalia's 64 page opinion you will find that he considers the word "State" in the amendment to mean the fledgling nation, not individual States, and he refers to individual state militias as "militias" and a federally organized militia formed from state militias as an "organized militia". He uses English law and original intent to masterfully separate the right to bear and keep arms from connection to service in a militia or "organized" militia, but he acknowledges that keeping and bearing of arms facilitates (his word) the forming of militias and "organized militias". He does not find the prefratory clause restrictive.

 

[piezoe]

A 64 page opinion on a 27 word paragraph. A paragraph already interpreted and explained in posterity and in no uncertain terms by numerous founding fathers who were actually around at the time those 27 words were penned.

Is it any wonder why our "modern" society is so fucked up? What with such a collective aversion to both common sense and simplicity.

You'll be gratified to learn that Scalia very much agrees with you. His Opinion rested heavily, and mightily, on opinion in the Founding era. He also invoked the word "infringed" -- one of the 27 -- to support his argument that the 2nd Amendment did not confer any new right, but merely secured a right already extant. He fell back on English common law, in fact all the way back to 1689, in elucidating the existing right. One thing the Court's Opinion did not do is close the door to uniform gun control legislation that does not "infringe". I would not be surprised if future challenges to gun regulations were to revolve around that pesky word "infringe".

Lawyers take heart. You shall not be out of a job anytime soon.