Columns Jeffrey Salkin: Martini Judaism Opinion

Stop mansplaining guns!

(RNS) — Yes, I am still writing about guns. As the shloshim (thirty day mourning period) in the wake of the Parkland massacre continues, I cannot help but do so.

Here is what is starting to drive me a little nuts.

It’s the inevitable Facebook conversations, and the in-person conversations, with gunphiles, who challenge their opponents with rhetorical questions like:

  • “Tell me, how do you define an assault rifle?”
  • “What is the meaning of a military weapon?”
  • “Do you know what a bumpstock does?”
  • “Have you ever fired a gun?”

I understand why gun “opponents” need to know more about guns, and gun culture.

We need to understand the place of guns in American society, and the people who own guns, the overwhelming majority of whom are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who own firearms for self-protection, or target practice, or hunting.

We need to understand these things because, frankly, we are now in a war — a war against the profligacy of weaponry in American society. The least we can do is to understand the weapons, and to respect people whose views and lifestyles differ from ours.

In other words, we need to treat gun owners, and perhaps even the NRA, in the same way as we have treated other sociological cohorts who are not us, who are Other, but to whom we offer that old “love your neighbor as yourself” kind of thing.

I get it.

But, this “tell me everything you know about guns before you can even enter the conversation” is weirdly elitist. It is intended to end the conversation — by making the anti-gun people admit to what they do not know.

It is true; I do not know as much as I probably should about, say, the AR-15.

But this is what I do know about guns.

Let’s say that you own a gun for protection against the possibility of burglary. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 72a) basically says that a burglar who enters a home is already the functional equivalent of a dead person; in other words, he or she knows what he or she is getting themselves into.

If the burglar had the desire, means and arms, he would kill the homeowner. Likewise, the homeowner would kill the burglar: “if someone comes to kill you, kill that person first.”

(Which, by the way, is also part of the Jewish approach to abortion. If the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you must — sadly, tragically — kill the fetus in self-defense.)

But, if someone breaks into your home, and you have a gun — you don’t actually have to kill that person. You could, for example, fire at the kneecaps (ouch), or otherwise try to disable the burglar.

That is, if you have anything like the presence of mind to do so.

That is, if you hit anything other than the chandelier.

I understand having a gun to protect yourself.

What I do not get is why that gun needs to be an AR-15, or one of its cousins.

Because, unless you have that gun to fire on the rifle range,  there is only one reason to own and fire one of those guns at another person — and that is to kill the other person.

I do not need to be an expert on killing machines to know that they are, well, lethal. No more than ordinary Americans needed to be able to identify a tumor in a lung in order to know that cigarettes are potentially lethal, as well — and look at how American society successfully transformed its attitudes towards tobacco.

I know enough to know enough about mass death — because, as we say in the south — all Americans have skin in this game.

Because this whole “I need to teach you what you need to know about guns” is mansplaining — in which many of my co-genderites explain things that men, supposedly, are supposed to know about — or even what they are not supposed to know about — and doing it in a slow, even unwittingly condescending way.

So much of the pushback on the gun conversation is, quite simply, mansplaining.

Because, despite the presence of some women on the pro-gun side of the page, this is essentially a male conversation.

“You are not going to come and take my gun away!” they scream.

Excuse me — calling Dr. Freud….

So, this is mansplaining. Or, if you will, “real mansplaining” — “real” men afflicted with malignant masculinity who have to explain weaponry to the rest of us unmanly snowflakes whose only real intellectual crime is wanting our kids and the rest of us to be safe.

Or, to bring it back to an earlier generation’s fight — I might not have known the exact details of the Tet Offensive to know that our nation’s military adventure in Viet Nam was wrong.

We will win this fight against the culture of death. Trust me — we will.

And that ain’t mansplaining.

 

 

 

 

About the author

Jeffrey Salkin

Rabbi Jeffrey K. Salkin is the spiritual leader of Temple Solel in Hollywood, Fla., and the author of numerous books on Jewish spirituality and ethics, published by Jewish Lights Publishing and Jewish Publication Society.

318 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Ammosexuals thrive on their self assigned superiority to us mere mortals. They love putting the 2nd amendment on a pedestal above all of the other civil rights in the constitution, especially the right to be alive. They wax eloquent on the differences between this weapon of mass murder and that weapon of mass murder, as if the technical details somehow create a distinction between weapons of mass murder. They have an amazingly elevated sense of their bravery, as long as they have weapons to hand, bravery that is only matched by their paranoia about someone coming to take their long, hard, virile weapons.

    Thus, they mansplain to us idiots why their weapons are necessary.

    As I have said many times, and will say again: we cannot reason with them. We can only outvote them. And perhaps, someday, we will.

  • Many citizens believe that the right to self-defense is one of the“certain unalienable Rights” about which Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, and the Supreme Court agrees based on the history of its adoption.

    Since gasoline, or fertilizer and diesel fuel, or an airplane, or an automobile can be weapons of mass murder, they suggest that picking the satanic weapon of the moment to pass useless laws against defies commonsense and will accomplish nothing but changing the next lunatic’s means.

    They point to Prohibition and the so-called War on Drugs as examples of why this approach is doomed before it begins.

    The gun controllers cannot be reasoned with. They look for “root causes” – mother did not stir his oatmeal clockwise when he was five and so he grow up a homicidal maniac – and seek safety in laws which as this Parkland shooting demonstrated accomplish nothing if they are not enforced. They deny the existence of evil but then call this or that inanimate object “evil”.

    Fortunately we outvote them.

  • And thank you yet again for proving my point about ammosexuals.

    People don’t drive cars in general with the intention of murdering other people. When people point guns at other people, it is generally with the intention of murdering them. When people point automatic weapons of whatever sort at other people, it is generally with the intention of murdering as many of them as possible.

    The comparison to the wars and drugs and alcohol all fall on that difference between guns and drugs.

    You are outvoting us for now. I hope we finally grow up in this country.

  • The way to deal with those comments that are meant to be conversation stoppers, is to refuse to stop the conversation. Be Prepared, to have a comeback question. Ask if they know what a “well regulated militia” means? Ask if they know what the 2nd amendment actually says? Ask if they really think assault rifles, et. al will be much protection against helicopter gun ships, drones that drop bombs and rocket launched grenades? Ask if they have been paying attention to the wars in the Middle East? .Ask what the meat of a deer is like after it has been hit by bullets from an assault rifle?

    On another conversation stopping comment that comes from some religious leaders, “God is beyond human comprehension”. I reply if that is true than anything a human thinks they know about God, what he/she is like, whether he is a he and not a she or an it, what he she demands from us and what he/she can or cannot do is nothing more than figments of human imagination. If God is beyond our comprehension we can’t make any claims about God!

  • Funny how the UK’s citizens have access to fertiliser, diesel, planes etc. and we don’t have anything like the carnage that regularly occurs in the US.

    Over here – men who doubt their virility get a big, powerful car and modify the exhaust.

  • There is no constitutional right to “be alive”. Never in any time in the past have people been safe. That’s why the 2nd amendment was included, to protect against a government gone wrong, and to give everyone the chance at self defense against a physically superior threat. I’ll bet if you’re in the middle of a riot or any emergency where the police presence is nonexistent and gangs are roaming, you would wish you had an “ammosexual” present, or a “weapon of mass murder” to save your sorry ass. The rich people do. Your insulting diatribe, which had zero good points, shows that you’re writing from a position of no thought, just emotion.

  • And thank you for for proving how your anti gun intellectualsexual viewpoint works. . Did you purposely misinterpret what Bob said, or are you just a troll looking for responses? This issue has nothing to do with “growing up”. It has to do with the reality of living in a world of Humans, some of which are evil. I choose to be able to protect myself against criminal activities. You are welcome to be a victim. That’s your choice.

  • Good comment. I especially think it would be very valuable to talk about that “well regulated Militia” with which the Constitution starts the Amendment regarding a right to own/bear arms. that phrase itself implies some sort of regulation, oversight, limitation.

    If it is okay for a person to have an AR-15, why not a helicopter gun ship. Why isn’t it common for people to have tanks capable of shooting howitzer shells? I actually don’t think it is illegal and would love to know. Are there limits?

    All rights have limits. We desperately need to talk about how we limit guns by their lethality, by the amount of ammunition with which they can be quickly loaded, and spaces where guns are not allowed except in the hands of police or military – like schools, college campuses, government buildings, and my house.

  • And no one says you shouldn’t be able to protect yourself. but regulating the kinds and amounts of guns available to you doesn’t interfere with that.

  • “That’s why the 2nd amendment was included, to protect against a government gone wrong, and to give everyone the chance at self defense against a physically superior threat. I’ll bet if you’re in the middle of a riot or any emergency where the police presence is nonexistent and gangs are roaming, you would wish you had an “ammosexual” present, or a “weapon of mass murder” to save your sorry ass. ”

    Is that a regular thing in this country, apart from black people being killed by the police, of course? Did OBama or Clinton really come to get your guns, though it does appear Jabba the Trump is considering it? Do your fanatasies include standing up to the Us Army or Marines?

    It all goes to show you’re writing from a point of no thought, just emotion.

  • “That’s why the 2nd amendment was included, to protect against a government gone wrong,” I think you are factually mistaken. No one would put a justification for treason in its founding organizational document. The 2nd was to provide for protection against foreign invasion. True, the Declaration uses that argument, but the Constitution does not. Further, it was not until District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that the two clauses were unlinked. All Supreme Courts before 2008 ruled that States needed to provide for militias, i.e. a National Guard, and that individual ownership of weapons could be strictly regulated by the individual state. Thus no clear individual “right” to own weapons. Instead, they were permitted by state law. Up stream someone asked why individuals can’t have attack helicopters. The answer is that it hasn’t been tested in the courts yet. But the way Heller was written suggests that you could possible win in court if you tried. Of course you’d need to have the money to buy one, someone to sell you one, and the millions it would take to push it through the courts, But think of it: Your own attack helicopters… for self-defense, of course.

  • Yes, weapons, including the AR 15 are designed to employee lethal force for self-defense.
    1. So I shoot the intruder in the “knees”. Intruder is armed with a concealed handgun and returns fire and kills me. Why should the homeowner be required to take the risk.
    2. Yes, some bad people utilize tools intended for defense to use lethal force in the service of evil. Is the problem the weapon or the person. Seriously, a person can do just a much damage with a revolver or other handgun in a school shooting.

    Saying we should ban guns would be akin to the following:
    1. DUI – how many people are killed by people drinking and drving. So do we ban alcohol because it is designed to alter mental state? Do we ban the use of the vehicle because so many people are killed by other people misusing vehicles?
    2. weaponized medicine – medical science (largely a good thing) is weaponized into lethal force for abortion. Millions die each year. (Oh, never mind, the liberals have already rationalized that those killed “aren’t human” so the same folks who want to ban guns won’t bat an eye at millions of abortions.)

    “We will win this fight against the culture of death. Trust me — we will.”

    Only when we stop turning a blind eye to evil in all its forms. Only when we respect one another’s right to life and value (that means all of us, including the unborn). Otherwise our hypocrisy and self-service attitude will continue. Lets have a real conversation about the “culture of death” millions upon millions of innocent unborn children dead. Talk about that then I will think you have a moral position from which to preach to those who are guilty of nothing more than owning an instrument of self-defense.

    But ask yourself this question. Do you really think evil people are going to go away? Do you really think that it would be remotely possible that the night will come that no one enters someone else’s home or life to rob, hurt, rape or murder them? Do you really think people will change enough that there will absolutely be no need to defense oneself against an evil person? Do you really think disarming millions of lawful decent gun owners will protect the world against evil people intent on causing harm?

    If people are basically good then why do we have police forces, or the military for that matter? Why do you lock your door at night? Why does your car have a lock on it? Why did we abbreviate the number to call for help to 911? Was it just medical emergency or was it also because of other people and their potential evil behavior? Would you not defend your family if they were in harm’s way?

    How about we do this: we recognize we have a problem with evil in our society, with plain downright meanness and mental illness and have some real conversations to deal with that.

    But I’d be willing to amend the Constitution to reject semi-automatic weapons with ammo capacity large than the standard handgun if we agreed to amend the Constitution to call abortion what it is: murder.

  • And thank you again for proving that reason means nothing to you and your friends.

    When people point cars at other people, it is generally with the intention of killing or injuring them.

    Automatic weapons have been regulated by the National Firearms Acts since 1934. The manufacture or importation of automatic weapons for sales to civilians ended in 1986.

    But, you and the rabbi know all you need to know about “AR15s” to make zany comments like that. They’ve been sold to the public for over 50 years, nearly 6 million are in the hands of ordinary citizens, and yet they are rarely used in crime.

    Yes, we outvote you and we plan on keeping it that way.

  • No, the Second Amendment was to protect the ancient right of the individual to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

    The two clauses were unlinked long before DC v Heller – and if you had actually read the Heller opinion you would know that.

    You would also know that nothing in a prior Supreme Court opinion held that the purpose of it was to provide for the state militias.

    Prior to the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights the Second Amendment only prevented the Federal Government from interfering with the natural right to arms, but with incorporation it applied to the state and local governments.

    Attack helicopters are not covered by the Second Amendment, which only guarantees the right to arms. Arms are those things carried or borne – pistols, muskets, rifles, knives, swords.

    Ordnance – cannons, attack helicopters, tanks – are not within the meaning of arms.

    Before writing something like “(b)ut the way Heller was written”, I would actually take the time to read the decision, which is a college-level course in the history and meaning of the Second Amendments.

  • No, “well-regulated” in the parlance of 18th America had absolutely no implication whatsoever of “some sort of regulation, oversight, limitation”.

    Synonyms would be “proficient”, “well-practiced”, and “skilled”. The primary purpose of the Amendment was to protect the ancient right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

    The reason why the Amendment does not guarantee a right to own a helicopter gun ship, a tank, or artillery is because they are not arms. The Amendment deals with arms – weapons such as swords, knifes, rifles, muskets, pistols which can be borne.

    In 18th century English a helicopter gun ship, a tank, or artillery would be ordnance, and ordnance is not within the scope of the Amendment.

    Since the purpose is to guarantee the right to self-defense, weapons which are lethal are required, and if they can be quickly loaded that is even better.

  • Or in your case, simply provide the actual text of the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which explains “well regulated”, “militia”, and the scope of the amendment.

    Or point out that assault rifles, real ones not the pretend ones you speak of, are and have been regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 as machine guns, that no one news for sale to civilians have been manufactured or imported since 1986.

    Or have someone who actually hunts deer explain the ballistic facts of life to you.

  • I am certainly glad that someone finally introduced the term “evil” and used it to describe the perpetrators of this act.

  • First your argument over drunk driving is misleading -While don’t stop drinking, there are a host of sanctions to separate the drinker from their vehicle. Drivers lose their vehicles and/or licenses. Vbe subject to breath testing based on driving behaviour, , do jail time, drive a vehicle equipped with an interlock system (with trans-dermal monitoring in the pipeline) or be subject to police monitoring.

    As for your second point which you kinda negated – well, I was raised with the motto that two wrongs don’t make a right. Don’t use one to justify the other.

    Finally, a homeowner choosing to protect his property by shooting someone instead of investing in home protection measures, is no better than the intruder. And in terms of damage to a person, the weapon can matter because the type of ammunition used also matters and the number of shots fired easily.

  • But the UK is not alone. The US is an anomaly among first world countries. And mass shootings increased by 299% with the repeal of selling assault s. Between age of typical shooters, ‘action’ video games, bump stocks

    Ther is less than 20 million hunters and farmers in the US but over 330 million firearms so a whole lotta paranoia going on I would say. And there are approximately 300 motor vehicular homicides annually.

  • The United States has consistently had more violent crime than other Western nations for as far back as statistics exist.

    No one knows precisely why.

    It has not risen in rate with the increase in ownership of firearms, nor have a variety of gun control schemes reduced it.

    Those of us who grew up with firearms see the paranoia as existing on your side of the discussion.

    The USA has the highest vehicular crash death rate as well:

    https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/health/us-highest-crash-death-rate/index.html

    http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/traffic-deadliest-year/

    Rifles of ALL TYPES are less often used to commit homicide than knives, blunt objects, personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.), and shotguns and the number each year has been dropping for some time:

    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

  • You are incorrect on your first point in that you fail to observe that such sanctions come only after the fact, in many cases after another person is harmed or killed. I have no problem with sanctions and removing the right to a firearm for someone who has given evidence of intent to commit an illegal act with said firearm.

    As for your final point, you are absolutely incorrect. I would look at a person defending his family as a hero, certainly not on the same plain as the intruder. But your point is quite illuminating at how you would judge your fellow citizens for defending their own lives and the lives of those they love.

  • I spent my evening workout giving some thought to why the same people who want to recall firearms from millions of law abiding citizens who have never demonstrated any intent or misuse of said firearm would also adamantly defend the right to an abortion, who would never entertain restriction of alcohol for all because of DUI (or vehicles for that matter), and so forth. When there is a seeming inconsistency there is often a hidden consistency. I suspect it to be the following:

    “What do I want?” One wants to be free of the responsibility and burden of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy so he/she defends the right to an abortion. One wants to drive so no on would restrict vehicles to those who don’t use alcohol. One wants to drink so folks would never entertain restriction of alcohol as a substance in spite of the fact that its intended effect is to alter mental state. But many don’t want to own a gun and wound never want to pull the trigger in any circumstance to take another life (which I respect by the way). Since that particular thing is unwanted, one feels advocates for taking that away from others, in that it is no loss for the one so advocating.

    Is it really the millions of legal responsible gun owners who make you unsafe, or the evil people who ever day use whatever is at their disposal to use force to get what they want or to cause harm to others? Do guns turn people into murderers? If so, they must be very ineffective at it given that millions of people have not utilized their weapon to murder another person. That argument would be much more effective if turned to medical science and abortive techniques, for here we have indeed seen millions of people killed by choice. If we are going to really have this debate, lets have an honest debate and center it where the problem really is – our self-centered, self-justifying, self-rationalizing mindsets, values, and behaviors. We all need to look in the mirror, myself included.

  • No, you actually made a number of statements that are directly contradicted by the plain text of the opinion.

    You clearly have not read the text itself and are relying on glosses and evaluations of those with negative opinions, largely in the pro-gun-control camp.

    Here is the opinion:

    https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63?1520218203

    For example, you wrote:

    “All Supreme Courts before 2008 ruled that States needed to provide for militias, i.e. a National Guard, and that individual ownership of weapons could be strictly regulated by the individual state.”

    The Supreme Court wrote:

    “(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States [****2] v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i. e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 619-626.”

  • First, nice edit. There is a reason that those are post offense – most of those are applied post-offense, not as the result of a fatal crash because most drinking drivers re-offend.As an FYI, ll school buses in Rhode Island have ignition interlocks. Other school bus companies have chosen to do so. And while in the US they are post-sentencing elsewhere, movement on being standard equipment is much faster elsewhere. But DUI is also one of the underlying drivers for driverless vehicles. . Partly lead by example and partly to eliminate alcohol related fatalities. But alcohol related fatalities in crashes are about 2/3rd to 40% of all crashes which makes them less than half of gun deaths.

    Your edit changes property to family. Different scenario of self-defense for imminent threat, But if you don’t have home protection to begin, makes it difficult to determine if an actual threat exists. while decreasing the odds of that even happening. And unless you are a skilled marks,am, and capable of performing while adrenalin is pumping, you really do need to invest in home secuirty systems.

  • A decision you never read closely or honestly.

    Even Antonin Scalia stated as he penned the opinion that at no point does the second amendment preclude regulation or restriction on firearms ownership for a variety of law enforcement or safely purposes. (Pg 54-55 of the decision). Although he danced around “militia” by essentially begging the question, “well regulated” was meant in its plain terms. Scalia was far smarter than your average NRA shill, who simply declare any form of gun control to violate the second amendment.

    As for the rest, you are just trying to throw up straw man positions to pretend the guns we are talking about are indistinguishable from ones not as commonly used for mass murder.

    You are trying to dishonestly derail discussion because you have nothing sane of value to say here. Evidently, rampant gun violence, death and injury are perfectly acceptable to you.

  • This is the 21st century with all kinds of technology available to make guns/weapons safer.

    How about fingerprint lock outs? Only the owner’s fingerprint can activate the weapon.

    GPS permanent tracers in every weapon?

    Minature radio transmitters in every weapon such that alarms are activated in areas where guns/rifles don’t belong?

    Severe punishments for those to include manufacturers who do not add protective devices to their weapons? Ditto for those who do not keep their weapons in locked storage?

    The door is wide open for other ideas.

  • Also in the 21st century, we have tasers, gps monitoring, 911, professional 24/7 security systems, OnStar and analogous systems, home and car monitoring (cameras, motion detectors, silent and shrill alarms, smart phone apps for off-site updates, window locks and alarms) so why do we need guns to protect our cars, homes and families?

  • My guess is that the NRA would eventually want all restrictions on armaments lifted! I think they realize that small arms are no match for bigger weapons and their manhood depends on having the biggest and the best.

  • Bob you are exactly the type of person the writer is talking about, thanks for such a good demonstration! I have eaten deer and elk for years as I main source of meat. So quit jumping to conclusions about people you know nothing about! You make a fool of yourself.

  • I feel sorry for you if you are unable to distinguish differences. Why a woman chooses an abortion is none of your or anyone elses business. She isn’t threatening large numbers of people with her decision. That “large numbers of people” is the key phrase here.

    Responsible gun owners want responsible limits.

  • But only because Bobby Joe is an extremely moral person, a patriot of practically heavenly bent, and the smartestest guy in any room, ever.

  • Bobby Joe say that a car, a knife, or a hammer are as lethal as a gun.

    So why do they needs guns hen they have cars, knives, and hammers?

  • When was the last time a woman getting an abortion has slaughtered everyone in the Room?

    Why are we the only country in the civilized world that seems to have gun murders, suicides, and death from guns on a regular basis?

  • Indeed but keep in mind the amount of carnage one can inflict with a rifle or pistol vs. the weapons you mention. And the only purpose of guns is to kill. Not so with your “weapons”.

  • Actually it is a decision you have never read closely or honestly, and your posts indicate that it is because you cannot.

    The opinion states that as with most rights regulations are not precluded. This has nothing at all to do with the phrase “well regulated” in the Amendment itself. Free speech is to some extent regulated. This also has nothing at all to do with the phrase “well regulated”, which does not appear in the First Amendment.

    https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63?1520262451

    That’s why:

    “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts [***647] of weapons protected are those ‘in common use at the time’ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

    does not even mention “well regulated”.

    What regulations are acceptable? Well, the opinion itself deals with a case arising from a regulation scheme in the District of Columbia. The Court concluded:

    “The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. [**2787] The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”

    In other words, these regulations infringed the Second Amendment.

    The militia pre-exists the Constitution, which the opinion does not “dance around”:

    “Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that ‘[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, § 8, els. 15-16).’ Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that ‘militia’ means the same thing in Article I [**2800] and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (‘to raise . . . Armies’; ‘to provide . . . a Navy,’ Art. I, § 8, els. 12-13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to ‘provide for calling forth the Militia,’ § 8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to ‘organiz[e]’ it — and not to organize ‘a’ militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize ‘the’ militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first Militia Act, which specified that ‘each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.’”

    When the militia, which already exists as the population with arms, is called forth, it is subject to proper training:

    “Finally, the adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (‘Regulate”: ‘To adjust by rule or method’); Rawle 121-122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights § 13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms’). “

    “Well-regulated”, according to the decision, meant “well practiced”, “proficient”, “skilled”, “trained to arms” which insofar as to the use of the arms themselves is a characteristic of the unorganized militia.

    Your persistent errors in reading the decision are (1) that regulating a right stems form the inclusion of “well regulated” in the Second Amendment. It does not. (2) That regulations can be written in such a way as to void the right itself, which is also completely untrue and prima facie unconstitutional.

    As to the chant “pretend the guns we are talking about are indistinguishable from ones not as commonly used for mass murder”, here are the newest available actual FBI crime statistics:

    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

    Rifles of all kinds were used in 285 homicides, fewer than handguns (5,782), fewer than shotguns (308), fewer than knives (1,490), fewer than blunt object (522), fewer than personal weapons – hands, fists, feet, etc. (707).

    No, they are not commonly used for murder, mass or otherwise.

  • Susan, you are exactly the type of person that makes long fact-based comments necessary on the part of those defending the Second Amendment in response to comments steeped in ignorance.

    Your comment, for example, was about eating deer shot by an imaginary “assault rifle”, not whether you have a taste for wild game.

    A shot from a .223 caliber rifle, the most common caliber for AR-style rifles, using a bullet suitable for hunting deer, e.g.:

    https://www.federalpremium.com/ammunition/rifle/family/vital-shok/vital-shok-nosler-partition/p223q

    creates a wound channel indistinguishable from any other hunting rifle, which answers “Ask what the meat of a deer is like after it has been hit by bullets from an assault rifle?”

    Ignorance may be bliss, but it is hardly the stuff of wise decisions.

  • Did you just seriously say that a homeowner who has his home broken into is no better than the intruder who breaks in simply because they don’t have an alarm system?

  • You can’t simply dismiss prohibitions as failures when you wish. At least be a little bit logically consistent.

  • Glad to know this author is essentially just like every cosmopolitan dwelling suburbanite who feels entitled to something without needing the requisite knowledge of said thing. Just accept the fact that you don’t know anything and therefore your opinion is valueless. You then flaunt this lack of knowledge yet demand to be taken seriously nevertheless. You speak of things like “just shoot him in the knee” like 1. thats an easy task and 2. it will magically knock the intruder unconscious. This is essentially the equivalent of having an atheist who knows a basic jewish premise feeling entitled to lead service at your synagogue. Utter stupid vapid moaning.

  • You are a lying turd. Your interpretation of Heller makes zero actual sense. You don’t know how to read a legal decision and always omit relevant sections which contradict your interpretation.

    Scalia wrote a two paragraph carve out on of 54-55 of the decision specifically reserving any and all discretionary power to regulate and limit gun ownership. Precisely to keep fools like you, from using the decision as a way to frustrate common sense regulations and limits.

    “The opinion states that as with most rights regulations are not precluded.”

    You contradicted yourself and conceded the argument from there.
    No need to go further.

    You have already conceded Heller cannot be invoked for a blanket objection to gun ownership regulations. Any other point you feel like making here is an unnecessary hair splitting unworthy of further discussion.

    Your average NRA shill invokes the second amendment for objection to any and all regulations and restrictions. Heller shows that is not a proper stance.

  • You make the assumption that all pro-choice people are just slutty women and carefree men. I defend the right to an abortion because the “responsibility and burden” of an unplanned pregnancy for my family could likely be, h”v, widowerhood for me and death for my spouse. That doesn’t mean there can’t be any restrictions on it, and there already are. Just as there are with alcohol, one of the most regulated substances in the US. In fact, the 21st Amendment gives the states the explicit power to regulate or even ban alcohol within their own borders.

  • All rights have limits. It is long since past time that we talk about how to limit guns, both in terms of who can and cannot have them and in terms of how lethal can be the firearms in the hands of the public versus arms intended for police or military.

    The real problem is that we cannot even start a conversation – the NRA jumps all over even this idea of limits. We have become a more lethal society, not safer with all the guns in the hands of so many. Other countries do not have the thousands of guns deaths that we have. We are not going down a path to a safer citizenry, but to one in which we will have more and more gun deaths.

  • You are worse than a lying turd, you are an ignorant lying turd.

    What “Your interpretation of Heller makes zero actual sense” translates to is “Your plain reading of the decision does not agree with what I choose to think” and “You don’t know how to read a legal decision and always omit relevant sections which contradict your interpretation.” translates into “Your plain reading of the decision does not agree with what I choose to think AND I wish I knew enough to extract something from the decision to support my eccentric interpretation.”

    Scalia did not write a two paragraph carve out reserving any and all discretionary power to regulate and limit gun ownership. As a matter of fact the decision voided the District of Columbia regulatory scheme, which flies in the face of your bizarre assertion. Nor did he find the authority to regulate the application of the Amendment in the Amendment itself, which is why he references other rights. It is inherent in any right that reasonable regulations can be applied.

    No, he did not write that “Precisely to keep fools like you, from using the decision as a way to frustrate common sense regulations and limits.” He wrote it because it is inherently true of all rights that they be balanced, and to make it clear that ideeots like the government of the District of Columbia had limits on how they could regulate.

    Since I have ALWAYS stated that “The opinion states that as with most rights regulations are not precluded.” and in fact quoted a number of times from the decision where it says that, the conclusion “You contradicted yourself and conceded the argument from there.” indicates you’re apparently congenitally incapable of processing either the decision or anything anyone writes unless it comports with your own misunderstandings.

    You are clueless, period.

  • This is not Let’s Make a Deal. The Second Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, allows the regulation of firearms. No constitutional change is needed. And your claim that a revolver, which holds six rounds, is as deadly as an AR-15, which holds 30-round magazines *and up*, is as wrong as those who suggest you can safely disarm an attacker by shooting at the knees instead of the torso.

  • Yes, all rights have limits.

    There are no firearms in the hands of the public which are intended only for police or military except for a small number of arms covered by the National Firearms Act of 1934. None.

    No firearms of the type covered by the National Firearms Act have been made or imported for sale to civilians since 1986. Zero.

    The NRA is not the problem.

    Like your belief that there are firearms in the hands of the public which are intended only for police or military, your belief in near preternatural interference from the NRA is a result of a sustained forty-year-long propaganda campaign by extremely well-funded gun control advocates.

    Other countries do not have a lot of things that the United States has, and vice-versa, because they are other countries with other peoples on other continents with other histories.

  • As does why a person wishes this rifle rather than that rifle none your business. With 6+million AR-style rifles in ordinary citizens’ hands, and less than 300 homicides each year from ALL rifles of ALL types combined, your criterion of “large numbers of people” threatened is not met.

    Keep your hands to yourself.

  • Your guess is wrong. The NRA supported the 1934 National Firearms Act. It supported the 1968 Gun Control Act. Theories about “manhood depend(ing) on having the biggest and the best” on the part of man-haters really add nothing to the discussion.

  • Prohibition for alcohol didn’t work. Prohibition for drugs has been a miserable failure.

    Prohibition is not what is being proposed for guns, however. We haven’t tried that in his country. Nor do any people but the most rabid anti gun people propose that. I’m not one of those..

    Regulation, licensing, taxing, background checks, limiting the number and types of guns,however…

  • “The United States has consistently had more violent crime than other Western nations for as far back as statistics exist.

    No one knows precisely why.”

    Common sense might suggest some though. And admitting that you have tried unsuccessful gun-control schemes is not a reason for trying ones that are proven to work elsewhere. Similarly just because something is even worse is not a rational reason for doing nothing.

    Having more deaths by vehicle crash is
    a) not relevant
    b) perhaps a consequence of the same irrational determination to be unsafe.

    Interestingly, and perhaps relevantly the two ex-colonies which seem to have had the biggest problems with firearms were Australia and the US.

    The first sorted its problems – the second hasn’t.

    The first was seeded with our unwanted criminals, the second our unwanted religious malcontents. [:-)}

  • “Common sense” coming from citizens of the Commonwealth always seem to wind up “do what we do”.

    Having more deaths by vehicle crash is certainly relevant, and after saying it is not, you demonstrate that it is by pointing to a potential underlying condition it may be a symptom of.

    There is essentially no correlation or relationship between Australia and the United States and firearms. Our ethnic make-ups, our histories, and our experiences with firearms are radically different.

    The first did not have a significant problem in the first place, and I guarantee you have almost no idea of what the “problems’ might be in the USA.

  • a growing body of research suggests that simply owning a gun is correlated with an increased likelihood that you’ll be a victim of violence. A study published in 2014 in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that people who live in homes with firearms are over three times as likely to die from suicide and two times as likely to be a victim of homicide as those who don’t have access to firearms. The study analyzed the results of 16 other studies and found that in all but one, access to guns was linked to a higher probability of murder or suicide. In another study published in the journal Aggression and Violent Behavior, two Harvard researchers conducted a review of 26 studies on gun availability and homicide in multiple countries and found that most of them “are consistent with the hypothesis that higher levels of gun prevalence substantially increase the homicide rate.”

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-things-the-gun-industry-wont-tell-you-2014-03-07#false

  • Bob, the National Firearms Act was written when there was not the prevalence of semi-automatic guns that are now widely available. Perhaps the Act needs to be adjusted to limit the sale of semi-automatic rifles.

  • Magazine fed semi-automatic rifles of similar power were widely available prior to WWI, e.g. the Winchester Model 1907 which fired a cartridge of intermediate power roughly equivalent in energy to the Eastern Bloc 7.62×39 used in the AK-types of rifles, fed from a 5, 10, or 15 round detachable box magazine.

    They were sold in hardware stores nationwide.

    No crime waves or mass murders resulted.

    History is repeating itself. There are 6+million AR-style semi-automatic rifles in private hands, but 300 homicides each year +/- 60 or so involving rifles of ALL TYPES.

    This is a solution in search of a problem.

  • No, there is not “a growing body of evidence that suggests that simply own a gun correlates with an increased likelihood that you will be a victim of violence”. Both studies you mention, the one in 2014 and the the one by the boys at Harvard, were funded by none other than gun control czar Michael Bloomberg by researchers he also funds.

    https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3?term=actual+defensive+uses#15

    “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.”

    “A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004).”

  • 300 homicides each year involving rifles of all types? Such honesty from such a moral ammosexual. In 2016:

    7105 from handguns.
    3077 from guns, but the type not stated. Now there is a bullet hole you can drive a truck through.
    Rifles 374.
    Shotguns 262
    Other guns 186.

    Hmmmm. Somewhat different picture.

  • You already conceded the most important point concerning regulation/gun control legislation. Everything else is just flinging poo. You established over a month ago, your infirmity when it comes to reading SCOTUS cases honestly. So your opinion on such matters means absolutely nothing to me.

    The right to bear arms is for “those in common use for lawful purposes”. (pg 47-58) Their definition of “militia” having zero to do with plain language reading of the text and entirely based on the impossibility of a modern implementation of its original meaning/use. (pgs 2-54)

    “Scalia did not write a two paragraph carve out reserving any and all discretionary power to regulate and limit gun ownership. ”

    In his words:

    “The

    Second Amendment
    right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any
    weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:
    For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the
    Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken
    to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms
    by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of
    firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,
    or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
    arms.”

    This is such an open ended interpretation that it can easily be used to justify bans of certain firearms and accoutrements for little to no justification. So you are wrong there.

    Essentially the courts have to deal with such things on a case by case basis and entirely contextual in nature. Unlike an NRA shill’s account of the 2nd Amendment, the courts apply varying forms of (typically 14th Amendment) scrutiny to the given restrictions and do not engage in categorical answers concerning a given government action.

    Basically any hope you have of saying “____ violates the 2nd Amendment because of Heller” will be complete and utter nonsense unless it is a gun ban entirely on point with the one in the case.

  • Blind adherence to audiology may also be bliss but it makes wise decision making an impossibility. My comment about eating deer shot by an assault rifle is because the meat would be inedible! Or do you not understand even the simplest aspects of hunting and what many bullets from an assault rifle does to a body (a deers or a humans)?

  • That was in 1934 and 1968 This is 2018. The times have changed and so has the NRA, its motives and objectives and paranoia.

  • And whilst you argue the killings will continue.

    Thoughts and prayers may make the unaffected feel empowered – without action they are an insult, a hollow replacement for empathy, to those who have died, and will die, their families and friends.

  • Life is short, often difficult, and without exception always ends.

    Running around with one’s hands in the air yelling “Do something! Do anything!” leads to more like Neville Chamberlain and Prohibition.

    Feeling “empowered”, of course, has no relevance whatsoever.

  • You know even less about the NRA then you do about hunting deer.

    The paranoia is on your side, not ours.

    Having agreed to comprehensive controls, background checks, and on and on, the next target is the Second Amendment, and that’s where the line has been drawn.

  • My side is having zero problems with decision-making.

    Why, particularly, would deer shot by what you keep calling “an assault rifle” be inedible? The bullet doesn’t know what weapon it was fired from. You aim, you pull the trigger, the cartridge fires, the bullet travels down the barrel, it goes through the air and hits the deer. It does not care from what it was fired, nor does the deer.

    What magical properties do you believe inure to this or that rifle that makes meat inedible?

    I grew up with guns and hunting. Your comment “do you not understand even the simplest aspects of hunting and what many bullets from an assault rifle does to a body” indicates you grew eating, and possibly preparing, the results of hunting. You appear to without any clue whatsoever about the actual shooting and killing part.

  • “Life is short, often difficult, and without exception always ends.”

    “Life is short” – nonsense it’s the only one anyone gets – it’s as long as it is.
    Define short – I’m seventy – that’s around five times older than many of the kids massacred before they can find out what life is like.

    “often difficult,” – maybe – so what?

    “and without exception always ends” – and the prize for most obvious and irrelevant statement of the year goes to Bob.

    “Running around with one’s hands in the air yelling “Do something! Do anything!” leads to more like Neville Chamberlain and Prohibition.”

    Straw man – no-one is suggesting “Do Anything”. People are suggesting that you care enough to try procedures that have a track record of success.
    And no – they won’t work instantly and no – they won’t be 100% successful but every life saved is a family that isn’t torn apart by apparent indifference.

    “Feeling “empowered”, of course, has no relevance whatsoever.” – nonsense – it is the conscience-salving result of a formulaic response which sanctions inaction whilst enabling those who could act to pretend they care.

  • The words “conceded the most important point concerning regulation/gun control legislation” is nonsensical, as though there were any discussion about whether regulations could be applied to this right. That argument exists ONLY in your head, as I and other posters not only conceded that but actually quote the opinion in Heller.

    You have established your complete incapacity to read legal decisions, which is why you keep tilting at windmills and clinging to errors.

    https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63?1520284227

    You write “The right to bear arms is for ;those in common use for lawful purposes’.”

    The Court held “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

    You wrote “Their definition of ‘militia’ having zero to do with plain language reading of the text and entirely based on the impossibility of a modern implementation of its original meaning/use.”

    The Court held “The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The ‘militia’ comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.”

    You wrote “This is such an open ended interpretation that it can easily be used to justify bans of certain firearms and accoutrements for little to no justification. So you are wrong there.”

    The Court ruled “The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of ‘arms’ that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition — in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute — would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”

    You wrote “Essentially the courts have to deal with such things on a case by case basis and entirely contextual in nature.”

    There is nothing in the opinion to support that.

    The long and the short of it is you are completely without a clue as to the text and meaning of the Heller decision, nor do you have any legal framework in which to place it.

  • Thank you for providing no citation of any kind.

    I provided an FBI citation through 2013. That year it was just under 300, 285.

    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

    I cannot verify your number at https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/

    The difference between 2013 and 2016, assuming your number to be accurate, is 89.

    How does that materially change the picture?

  • I dispute that they have “a track record of success”. Over here they have a track record of no success.

    The formulaic response is all yours – patent cures, weak analysis, disregard of others’ rights, suggesting that those who don’t adopt you ill-founded theories and pass your misbegotten laws don’t care.

  • because..something something..founding fathers….something Jesus..AMURKA.YEAH!

  • Here’s all I need to know about some guns:

    If you make them available easily to some people who are mentally unbalanced…they will take them and shoot hundreds of kids.

    What else do we need to know? Ergo…the rational thing is to keep these guns out of their hands..and given that these guns have little other non-criminal use..ban them.

  • “Ask what the meat of a deer is like after it has been hit by bullets from an assault rifle?”

    Tenderized?

  • I don;t get into the whole assault rifle debate. You can call them fairy dust launchers for all I care. If they can kill a schoolyard full of kids in minutes..we have no logical reason to sell them to people..especially crazy ones. Nuff said.

  • I honestly don;t care….if banning dangerous schoolyard killing weapons puts a cramp in someone’s hunting style..I say….be a real hunter and use a bow.

  • Plus..back when that was written we had basically no standing army to speak of…the militia WAS the army.

  • “The NRA supported the 1934 National Firearms Act. It supported the 1968 Gun Control Act.”

    Excellent! Then it should have no issue with supporting the 2018 AR15 Ban Act.

  • Indeed..and if you were the victim of a mass shooting in the 1700s with a musket, you may have been too stupid to live /s

    “OK now..I’m going to mass shoot you all.. Now..stand still whilst I re-load this musket. .Damn you! How dare you run!”

  • Of course there were mass killings in the 1700s.

    It ain’t the weapon, it’s the wielder.

  • ahem..do you?

    “61 percent of Americans say they now believe the AR-15 should be banned…”

  • It should have an issue. Such a law would accomplish nothing, and the AR-style rifles appear to be just the sort of thing the Second Amendment protects.

  • Shotguns can kill a schoolyard full of kids quicker.

    Unless you personally sell firearms “we have no logical reason to sell them to people”, as though it was your role to thumbs up or down other people’s rights, is preposterous.

  • And 81% of Americans cannot describe accurately what an AR-style rifle actually is.

    We have seen this before – Prohibition.

    Ignorance is more than bliss, it’s dangerous.

  • “Over here they have a track record of no success.”
    They have no track record because that haven’t been implemented.

    “patent cures” – I have no idea what response you mean by “patent cures” – do you?
    Generally – You might wish to ponder on all the profits made by pharmaceutical companies due to their “patent cures”

    “weak analysis” – other (more?) advanced western nations don’t have the volume of gun-related death that the US has. other (more?) advanced western nations don’t have the volume of guns that the US has. Assault weapons are not used by professionals who need to defend themselves – they use handguns.

    “disregard of others’ rights” –
    Look – the Constitution is pretty clear
    ” 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.” – clearly the intent is that the right extends only to the participation in a well regulated militia – an effectively unregulated individual does not have the right to bear arms – your 2nd – not mine.
    Whereas – “Life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are not so constrained and therefore the unhindered right to life trumps the limited right to bear arms.

    Similarly – I believe it is widely held that your right to express your opinion terminates just before your fist meets my nose. It the balance of rights that is important – sometimes they are not totally compatible and then morality has to be invoked.

    “suggesting that those who don’t adopt you ill-founded theories and pass your misbegotten laws don’t care” – By their works shall ye know them.

  • You have no idea whatsoever about guns and gun control in the United States. Here is an example:

    “Assault weapons are not used by professionals who need to defend themselves – they use handguns.”

    From where did you get this? Your compatriots are raging that “AR15″s are “assault weapons” just like the police and military use. You’re stating they are not used by professionals.

    Of course, both of you are wrong.

    Here is a picture of a policeman, in this case a London Metropolitan policeman, with one of those weapons you say they don’t use:

    http://n7.alamy.com/zooms/e5f5485f412e4b48817a430b61a1ab95/policeman-with-sub-machine-gun-london-england-a50g7e.jpg

    Real assault weapons are select-fire rifles capable of fully automatic fire. They are regulated as machine guns and have been since 1934. New ones for sale to civilians have not been manufactured or imported since 1986.

    “Life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are not in any American legal document, including the Constitution.

    I am sure there is a conversation about something you actually know something about. This one is not it.

  • You clearly were looking to use Heller to preclude any discussion of gun control. Too bad the decision doesn’t actually allow for such arguments. Nothing more to discuss at this point. You conceded the only important point you were trying to make with it.

    “Militia” has been turned into personal and lawful gun ownership. Regulations for controlling gun ownership are pretty wide ranging with no set ceiling. The limits to those regulations are entirely contextual on a case by case basis.

    Your comments are nothing more than poo flinging and attempts to salve a wounded ego. Your opinion on any given legal decision is worthless because you do not read them in context and have been found on several occasions omitting relevant information which does not suit your given narrative.

    “You write “The right to bear arms is for ;those in common use for lawful purposes’.”

    I did not. Scalia did. 🙂

    You block quote the decision but can’t understand what you are quoting nor have you done so in context. The part you quoted about militias supports my view. An “ideal of a militia” but clearly not the reality of one, since militias were disbanded and replaced over a century and a half ago.

    “There is nothing in the opinion to support that.”

    Except the part of the decision I quoted and you are ignoring around pgs 54-55. Ignoring key parts of a decision is how you argue these things. Hence your opinion of such matters is of no value. You failed to notice how specific the ruling was with regards to the law being struck down.

    All in all, discussing a SCOTUS case with you is a waste of time. You don’t know how to read them or don’t choose to do so in an honest manner.

  • When you have to pretend I said something I didn’t you have lost the argument.

    When you

    I did not say the our police don’t carry AR15s. I worked with the Metropolitan Police for a dozen plus years and had many conversations with armed officers around the UK (including those on airport security) – to the extent that I know the precise requirements that have to be followed before officers are permitted to open fire without announcing that they are armed police officers.
    For certain situations the AR15 is relevant but when faced with a terrorist suspect or a probably armed suspect pistols are usually used by the professionals because they are more effective at close quarters and less likely to cause unnecessary harm.

    The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document?
    “For “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the “unalienable rights” which the Declaration says have been given to all human beings”

    “I am sure there is a conversation about something you actually know something about. This one is not it.”
    Fail.

  • Funny how your police carry submachine guns when needed, as the picture illustrated. Same with us. The illustration was not an “AR15”. In fact I am reasonably certain you do not know what an “AR15” is based on your comments.

    Btw, I almost quoted you.

    The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It was agreed to and signed in 1776. The United States was formed in 1789 with the Constitution, the base legal document.

    You are correct, I should not have written “I am sure there is a conversation about something you actually know something about.” I am not sure.

  • I didn’t look at the picture – I know what the UK police do – clearly you are taking one picture and making erroneous assumptions because the reality does not fit your bias. I might also point out that armed officers are not private individuals with minimal (or non-existent) checks – they are experienced and proven police officers who have undergone rigorous selection processes and are subject to ongoing training that exceeds non-special forces military norms.

    When your average US gun owner meets the same standards they might be safe with such weapons.

    As to legal document -yup – I guessed you’d be splitting hairs.

  • It has been made clear so many times by me that I was not using Heller to preclude any discussion of gun control that your only two reasons for continuing to say so is knowing prevarication or brain damage.

    Militia has not been turned into personal and lawful gun ownership. The militia always involved personal and lawful gun ownership.

    The regulations for controlling gun ownership do have a set ceiling: regulations cannot infringe upon the Second Amendment rights without passing strict scrutiny. That’s the context for considering all regulation of rights.

    Your comments are nothing more than poo flinging and attempts to place a fig leaf over your remarkably consistent inability to process either the Second Amendment or the Heller decision.

    Your opinion on any given legal decision is worthless because you cannot read them with comprehension and have on several occasions stated that they say the exact opposite of their plain words.

    “ ‘You write ‘The right to bear arms is for ;those in common use for lawful purposes’. ”

    “I did not. Scalia did. :)”

    The phrase “The right to bear arms is for” appears nowhere in Heller.

    The phrase “those in common use for lawful purposes” appears in one context and one only in Heller:

    “ None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States [****2] v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i. e., those in common use for lawful purposes.”

    This references the Miller opinion that a sawed-off shotgun was not a militia-type weapon. Oddly that opinion seems to support the conclusion that AR-style rifles ARE militia-type weapons and therefore protected by the Second Amendment.

    As I just demonstrated, I understand what am quoting.

    But when you write “An ‘ideal of a militia’ but clearly not the reality of one, since militias were disbanded and replaced over a century and a half ago.” you make clear you don’t.

    The militia is all able-bodied men between certain ages with arms. You’re trying to equate that with the organized militia.

    In colonial era Anglo-American usage, militia service was distinguished from military service in that the latter was normally a commitment for a fixed period of time of at least a year, for a salary, whereas militia was only to meet a threat, or prepare to meet a threat, for periods of time expected to be short. Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures. A related concept is the jury, which can be regarded as a specialized form of militia convened to render a verdict in a court proceeding (known as a petit jury or trial jury) or to investigate a public matter and render a presentment or indictment (grand jury).

    In addition, your suggestion that “militias were disbanded and replaced a century and a half ago” is erroneous.

    Alaska, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, New Mexico, Ohio, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington all have active state militias.

  • The Declaration of Independence’s non-status as a legal document is 100%. There is no splitting hairs, you were 100% in error.

    The weapon the UK policeman was illustrated with is a fully automatic weapon. The average US gun owner does not have one because that is a machine gun which has been severely restricted since 1934.

    I made no erroneous assumptions, not one.

  • You’re splitting hairs about the DofI because you’re the one who introduced the concept of legality – not me – yet another straw man.

    You assumed that I was wrong about what the UK police use in different circumstances and you were wrong. You based your statement on a single picture knowing nothing about a subject I had intimate knowledge of until a few years ago.

    You fail to address the selection and training issue.
    You fail to address your ignorance of UK police weaponry.
    You introduce straw man arguments.

    You’re wasting my time and I’ve an early trip to the gym tomorrow.

    I’m out.

  • No, she’s contriving a completely unrealistic and extralegal requirement in an effort to justify a gun control stance that makes no sense at all.

    In every state a person has a right to use deadly force against an intruder who has broken into the dwelling and threatens its inhabitants.

  • Rabbi Salkin’s article could be more accurately entitled “Don’t confuse me with facts”.

  • Go to your copy of the Constitution, read Article V, and get organized.

    I figure your chances to be slim or none, but you never know.

  • Legality is a question. You ignorance of American law is a fact.

    I did not indicate you were wrong about what the UK police use, I indicated you were wrong in stating that neither police nor military use the weapons.

    I did not address the issue of selection and training because it was not part of the discussion.

    Your entire spiel is composed of straw men, and you were out as soon as you started.

  • ” I was not using Heller to preclude any discussion of gun control”

    That is entirely laughable. That much is obvious.

    “regulations cannot infringe upon the Second Amendment rights without passing strict scrutiny”

    That is not in the case. “Strict scrutiny” was not used nor such a limitation referenced. You are making up things up.

    “Oddly that opinion seems to support the conclusion that AR-style rifles ARE militia-type weapons and therefore protected by the Second Amendment”

    Nope, making that up as well. Scalia actually referred negatively to an assumption one had a right to in his own words “M-16 like guns”. The lawful uses of an AR-15 are relatively few bordering on virtually nil. Especially with high capacity magazines.

    Militias don’t really exist today. To take the second amendment literally would abolish a general right to bear arms as obsolete. It morphed into a personal right to bear arms.

    “…all have active state militias”. Not at all entirely accurate. You omit the part where the national guard system replaced the basic function of a state militia. Militias are now an auxiliary force to the national guard. A pale remnant of their original function.

    But then again, accurate representation of facts don’t help you here. If you are arguing that the current militias are the ones contemplated by the second amendment today, then it would preclude private ownership of firearms. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

    You really have nothing of value in this discussion.

    You have no point to make other than a blanket support of the status quo. A casual acceptance of a burgeoning illegal firearms trade and regular mass murder with legally acquired guns. So your response here is going to be useless.

  • Look up the difference in damage a round from an AR15 and a standard 9mm sidearm. That should explain why a handgun is sufficient and a rifle overkill. If you share a wall with another family or if you have others in your own house, the stray rounds from a sidearm going through drywall of ceiling or walls is enough of a hazard. From a rifle? You could kill someone next door with lawn space in the middle. That’s not home defense. That’s a neighborhood hazard.

  • There was a time when the mission of the NRA was to support sportsmen, It is now to increase the profits of gun manufacturers. There propaganda has encouraged many men to connect having guns as a necessary quality of being macho.

  • I believe an “arms deal” by Trump enabled the Saudis to buy just that sort of thing.

  • To determine whether regulation is necessary we need to know how dangerous the weapon’s potential is if distributed to the civilian population. If it would not be safe in the hands of civilians, they should not be allowed to have them.

    This problem can not be fixed by screening people for mental health. Any sane person might at certain times in a certain state of mind, decide to use the weapon which is handy. This has even been known to happen with professional police and military personnel.

  • I hunt deer and I wouldn’t want multiple large holes in it. The ideal is to kill it with one shot. If the only weapon I had was an AR-15, I would squeeze off only one well aimed round. I would much prefer to have a deer rifle as the aim would be better and the one round wouldn’t damage as much flesh.

  • The problem is not only the weapons which are dangerous. What makes it potentially disastrous is the number of people that have them and the ideology of many of these people. To get a handle on this ideology look an NRA TV.

  • Spoken as a good NRA follower. Does it really make you safer for those some, who are evil, to have AR-15’s?

  • You may want to keep your day job and stay out of the figuring business if your past posts are any indication of your competency.

    I have a political science degree. I know more about the const. then you do. Stay within your narrow band of knowledge.

  • More accurately, paranoids who think the Bill of Rights is an annoyance will cross that line.

    We had the same problem in the ’50s during the Red Scare with the First Amendment.

  • The gun manufacturers have their own association and lobby.

    The NRA is a citizens group with 5+million ordinary citizen members who almost all vote.

    Girly-boy critics and little old ladies simply love to repeat the mantra that exercising Second Amendment rights involves “being macho”.

  • Baloney Bob. That comment shows you are the one that is paranoid! Time to grow up.
    IF I was the one that is paranoid I would have stockpiled, guns ammo, lined my walls and windows with tinfoil. Since I have done none of those things your comment is simply childish.

  • Thank you for your outburst.

    I am still waiting to hear about how this or that rifle makes deer meat inedible.

  • “That is entirely laughable. That much is obvious.”

    No, I count over twenty posts to you from me stating the same thing, including citations from the Heller decision itself, details on strict scrutiny, and on and on.

    What is obvious is that you either don’t “get it” or are purposely obfuscating.

    “That is not in the case. ‘Strict scrutiny’ was not used nor such a limitation referenced.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

    “U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or ‘liberty clause’ of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a ‘suspect classification,’ such as race or national origin.”

    The Second Amendment is protected by the Due Process Clause.

    And this is the 19th time I have provided this same information to you.

    “Nope, making that up as well. Scalia actually referred negatively to an assumption one had a right to in his own words ‘M-16 like guns’.”

    https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63?1520339385

    The phrase “M-16 like guns” does not appear in the decision, nor does the phrase “like guns”.

    “Militias don’t really exist today.”

    Alaska, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, New Mexico, Ohio, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington all have active state militias.

    “Not at all entirely accurate. You omit the part where the national guard system replaced the basic function of a state militia. Militias are now an auxiliary force to the national guard.”

    The Militia Act of 1903 uses the term “militia” describe two groups within the United States:

    Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces. The National Guard and Naval Militia are included, but do not comprise the entire organized militia.

    Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

    The states noted above maintain state militias independent of the National Guard.

    “If you are arguing that the current militias are the ones contemplated by the second amendment today, then it would preclude private ownership of firearms.”

    No, because the unorganized militia exists with or without the organized militia. The Second Amendment protects the Reserve militia.

    You really have nothing of value in this discussion. You understand neither the Second Amendment nor the case law.

  • All rifles suitable for hunting deer are going to cause more damage than a 9mm pistol.

    You can’t hunt with a 9mm pistol.

    6+million AR-style rifles are in civilian hands, and the results don’t support that they’re “a neighborhood hazard”.

  • I have a post-graduate degree and a license.

    I am willing to bet I know more about the Constitution and the relevant case law than you do.

  • I simply copied and pasted Spuddie’s opening line.

    So, which is YOUR preference, ignorant or lying?

  • The gun manufacturers have their own organization.

    The NRA is made up of 5+million ordinary citizens, most of whom vote.

    Girly-men and little old ladies often suggest that exercising Second Amendment rights involves “a necessary quality of being macho.”

    That probably says much more about the accusers than the accused.

  • We’ve distributed 6+million AR-style rifles among the civilian population.

    So far the results indicate they are not especially a hazard, with 300 +/- homicides per year using rifles of all kinds.

    Your shotgun and your bolt action hunting rifle are more dangerous.

  • First, we don’t have sufficient data to negate the AR15 as a hazard after the 1996 Dickey Amendment. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, so we have zero statistical data on the actual danger. But from basic ballistics, the muzzle velocity of an AR15 round is 3 times higher than a 9mm sidearm, which means its hitting energy is 9 times greater. We always have new years eve bullets killing people, and shootouts inside buildings invariably have bullets fired in one room found in different rooms, going through walls. There is sufficient justification to state a real danger, and a need for research, but the NRA killed the money to find out what it is.

    You can’t justify AR15s for home defense, unless your home is a farm and you are trying to shoot horse thieves from your front porch towards the coral 100 meters away. A rifle of any type is simply not suited for maneuvering inside a house. The military went with a really short barrel version for the M4 to be useful at all in urban combat, but even that inside buildings is cumbersome. Any new military urban weaponry, like what Special Forces use, would be much shorter barrel with sub powered rounds, like MP5 or similar submachine guns (which fire pistol rounds).

    Then there is the semi auto, burst, or the conversion kits for full auto (illegal, but they are out there) that have exactly zero usefulness for home defense. Burst mode has questionable grouping accuracy, and full auto is just a silly spray of bullets in a wide arc. Semi auto single shot is the only reasonable setting, and is far more than what any self defense calls for.

  • We have a ton of data. We have 6 million plus AR-style rifles in the hands of the population, and 300+/- homicides with rifles of ALL kinds.

    From basic ballistics, the energy from any hunting round is multiples of a 9mm handgun. Basically you’re building an argument against hunting rifles, not against AR-style rifles.

    The NRA killed zero money.

    The head of the CDC violated the law and funded propaganda and stated unequivocally he intended to kill gun ownership. The head of the CDC could have been fined $100,000 for this violation of Federal Law, but instead Congress simply removed its funding for what it had euphemistically called “gun research”.

    Btw, the funding is back. Barack Obama via Executive Order had the CDC put $10m into the hands of a premier research organization to see what issues should be looked at. Guess why you haven’t heard about it.

    All the blather about using one inside the house is just that. Most AR-style rifles are used for hunting and target shooting.

    Your 9mm pistols are all semi auto.

    Burst (multiple shot with one trigger squeeze) firearms are treated as machine guns under the National Firearms Act.

    You cannot convert any AR-style rifle made since 1986 to fully automatic operation with a kit. The ATF will not permit the sale of any firearm that can be converted to fully automatic fire by changing parts such as trigger groups, sears, and the like.

    Producing a fully automatic weapon in a machine shop, whether by making a new firearm or converting an existing one, is not only forbidden by the National Firearms Act but is a felony which the ATF enforces with particular vigor.

  • You are wrong about propaganda. NRA killed funding because it doesn’t want facts to come out.

    Obama opened the money for about one year. It closed down again. No, we don’t have reliable statistics. Your claim of numbers came out of nowhere reliable, and isn’t useful for this discussion. Out of shots fired inside buildings, how many from handguns went into other rooms, per 100 shot, vs how many from rifles of any type.

    Military urban warfare training specifically states to be careful on how you use a rifle of any type inside buildings because the danger of collateral damage is real.

  • I would add that the reason for the addition of the second amendment to our Constitution was to satisfy the southern, slave-owning states. Every adult male in a slave state was required to serve regular duty on slave patrols–searching for and apprehending (or worse) escaped slaves.

  • The President cannot “open… money”. Congress appropriates money.

    Here is how the CDC ran itself into trouble:

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/

    The NRA does not pass budgets. Using the NRA as the boogeyman is classic gun control propaganda.

    My claims of numbers came from FBI data previously referenced in other posts to this discussion.

    But since the primary reason for owning any rifle is not shooting inside buildings, if you have a point you’re not making it.

  • Yet no actual citation from Heller here to show where “strict scrutiny” is the standard here. (nor will there be) So it was clear you were either conflating, lying or didn’t know what you were reading.

    In discussing the dissent Scalia mentions:
    “He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions” (pg 62)

    ““It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles
    and the like
    — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service,
    who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.” (pg 55)

    Scalia is actually saying a ban on weapons like assault rifles would be perfectly in line with the 2nd Amendment.

    There. Done. You don’t know what you are talking about and feel the need to make crap up.

    Nothing more to discuss here.

  • Kindly address your objections to the poster here who appears to be inordinately preoccupied with excrement.

  • You could mass shoot people back then, but you needed a lot of people with guns to help you do it. In fact that is how they were used back then
    Volleys of musketry and whatnot. 🙂

  • “Your shotgun and your bolt action hunting rifle are more dangerous.”

    Nope. Because casualties and potential for casaulties with AR-15’s and other assault rifles per incident are far higher. The Las Vegas shooting alone caused more casualties than over 100 incidents in the state with shotguns, pistols and bolt action rifles.

    You are using dishonest metrics here for evaluating danger. Lying and exaggerating is key to your non-position of upholding a ridiculous status quo.

  • If you are ignorant of the subject, you are not lying about it
    If you are lying about it, you are not ignorant of the subject
    Therefore oxymoron. Which did you mean?

  • “Yet no actual citation from Heller here to show where “strict scrutiny” is the standard here.”

    Strict scrutiny is the standard for the rights in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment is the Bill of Rights. The decision assumes you know your way around constitutional law. Had Scalia written it for you, sentences would have been no more than twelve words long, and words would have been restricted to two or less syllables.

    Amusingly the opinion does mention scrutiny when it rejects Justice Stevens’ suggestion of a special level of scrutiny just for the Second Amendment:

    “He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions”.

    The “weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned” doesn’t advance your argument. The AR-style rifles are not M-16 rifles, which are fully automatic military weapons. The AR-style rifles sold are semi-automatic weapons that cannot be converted to fully automatic operation.

    But this from your quote “the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service” fairly torpedoes your other leitmotif, that without the organized militia the ownership of arms disappears.

    Nothing more to discuss here.

  • You are deliberately defining “dangerous” in a dishonest fashion as only total number of incidents but ignoring the severity of a given incident.

    You can’t be taken seriously on this subject. Your need to lie and conflate undermines any pretension that you have something of value to say here.

  • Given your documented misstatements on the Heller decision, constant misquotation of your correspondents, complete lack of knowledge of the Constitution and the legal system, you can’t be taken seriously on this subject.

    Your need to lie compounded with your ignorance cut the ground out from under your bizarre theories and interpretations.

  • If you used the phrase “totally ignorant” you might be able to make that argument. A person can be ignorant but knowledgeable enough to be dishonest. Spuddie is a good example.

  • Provided they didn’t have two rows of people with guns who were well trained in close order drill. One reloaded while the other shot.

    You needed a lot more people to commit an effective mass shooting in the 18-19th century than you do now. A teenager with an AR-15 can do more damage in five minutes than 20 “Redcoats” could.

  • You are annoyed that your transparent dishonest argument has fallen apart and now you try to change the discussion. How cute.

    That is a nice temper tantrum you are having there. 🙂

  • You are annoyed that I found the exact quotes which make your statements look utterly foolish. Its so funny watching you tread around when you are being pwned by your own inability to read a case in an honest fashion.

    Now you are just having a tantrum. Have fun with that.

  • YOU “found the exact quotes”?

    You’re either delusional or on something, or both.

  • Whatever level of scrutiny is eventually settled upon, rational basis is off the table since the 2nd Amendment has been explicitly held to protect a fundamental right.

    The circuits are split on the issue — some already go with strict scrutiny, while others go with an intermediate level of “heightened” scrutiny which is only marginally distinguishable from strict. Given the changing make up of the SCOTUS, I would bet that strict scrutiny will ultimately win out whenever the issue arrives there.

  • You’re thinking of something like the 4th District.

    The applicable level to things in the Bill of Rights is strict.

    However, there is pushback in the Northeast and of course the 9th District to Heller.

    The SCOTUS passed on one case out of the 4th, which means if I read it correctly it is letting the dissenters, the judicial versions of Spuddie, get it all on the table before nuking intermediate review.

    For those unfamiliar with the three levels, they are rational basis review, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

    Strict scrutiny is the standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, particularly those found in the Bill of Rights such as the First and Second Amendments, and those deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or “liberty clause” of the 14th Amendment, particularly when a government action applies to a “suspect classification,” such as race or national origin.

  • What we are doing is debating if there are “firearms in the hands of the public” which SHOULD BE “intended only for police or military.” You seem to think it is a settled issue and there are a lot of folks who want to move those limits. We really should not be surprised that every decade or two we need to relook at these and other definitions of law. The guns we have now are not the muskets of so long ago.

    Oh, I think the same thing about other kinds of law, too. Tax law, for example, becomes useless after a while because new ways of buying, selling, earning etc come to be and because we do have very smart people who find the loopholes that are always in laws. We have some very creative tax lawyers.

    Same is true of guns. New guns, more powerful guns, more deadly. We need to talk about the kinds of guns and new ways of monitoring who is allowed to get them. This is really not about all or nothing , about banning all guns. It is about redrawing boundaries.

  • Outburst?. Girley boys? Sheesh? As the humanist said it makes the meat “tenderized”! Guess you aren’t a hunter just a wannabe.


  • “That’s why the 2nd amendment was included, to protect against a government gone wrong”

    That is not only absolutely wrong, a piece of NRA bullcrap, but the opposite intention was there. The point was armed citizenry would be acting in service of the government. No government creates a right to overturn it by violent means. The right to bear arms being closer to recruiting people for government backed death squads. Much like how the right to bear arms plays out in dictatorships. [The idea that they ban a right to bear arms as a rule is complete fiction]

    “‘ll bet if you’re in the middle of a riot or any emergency where the police presence is nonexistent and gangs are roaming, you would wish you had an “ammosexual” present, or a “weapon of mass murder” to save your sorry ass.

    You just want to play out fantasies of being an American Vietcong and commit acts of terrorism/murder police. You want the public at risk from mass murder and rampant street crime because you want to engage in LARPing. There is nothing sane or intelligent about your position.

  • No, any particular round shot from an AR-style rifle does just what the same round does from any other rifle. It is the bullet design and the velocity, not the rifle, that determines the terminal ballistics.

    Now tell me you have a degree in political science and know all about terminal ballistics.

  • No, it does not make meat “tenderized”. That is just silliness.

    It does what any hunting round does. Given any given bullet design of a particular weight at a given velocity it doesn’t care what it was shot out of.

    Considering how far off base your comments are, “Guess you aren’t a hunter just a wannabe.” is just more posing.

  • I don’t seem to think it is a settled issue, it is a settled issue as the District of Columbia found out in the case District of Columbia et al. V. Heller.

    “Same is true of guns. New guns, more powerful guns, more deadly.”

    Guns with the same exact mode of operation, semi-automatic, magazine-fed, intermediate power, have been for sale since at least 1905. That’s 113 years, and the AR-style rifles are not more powerful nor more deadly. If you want to examine new guns, you’ll have to look elsewhere because AR-style guns have been sold to civilians for over half a century.

    So, why the hub-ub over “assault weapons”?

    The source of this particular hysteria has a name: Josh Sugarmann.

    He was at the time the communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns (now known as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence). Since it was known even before District of Columbia et al. V. Heller that handguns were protected by the Second Amendment, he concluded that the way to attack handguns was to create a stalking horse.

    His solution was to invent a fictitious class of firearms – “assault weapons” – and he published “”Assault Weapons and Accessories in America” in 1988. Sugarmann knew full well that real assault rifles are regulated as machine guns and new ones for sale to civilians have not been made or imported since 1986.

    He also knew that the guns he demonized differed not a whit from guns sold since the beginning of the 20th century, and that they were rarely used in crime of any kind.

    But he also knew that people who know nothing about firearms could be scared and panicked.

    It is a scam from beginning to end.

  • Is there any particular reason why, if you used an AR-style rifle, you would fire MORE than one shot?

    I aim and that generally works pretty good.

  • Certainly perfect if you live in the Bay area, know zero about firearms, and simply want to cut poses.

  • No. Is there any particular reason you would need an AR-style weapon for hunting animals that don’t shoot back? The point for safety is to get unnecessary weapons that can slaughter people out of circulation.

  • It is not settled in the minds of a majority of citizens. And that is where it is important. We need new ways of defining guns of different types. The old ways of defining categories of weapons – like “semi-automatic” or “assault” “mode of operation” – and trying to make law around those definitions is not working to the satisfaction of most people of this nation. You may not want that to matter but it does.

  • Unless the majority of the citizens have judicial power, I don’t believe that is where it is important. The majority of citizens have shown over and over again that they’d scrap a good part of the Bill of Rights.

    I’ve been engaged in this discussion fairly heavily, and have run into an entire two people who can describe what “‘semi-automatic’ or ‘assault’ ‘mode of operation’” mean.

    I guarantee you that you were unaware that you could buy the functional equivalent of an AR-style rifle in 1905.

    Making laws around these definitions works fine. You can’t recall the last time you read of a machine gun used in a crime.

    What you’re illustrating is that ignorance leaves the populace open to propaganda, and that leads to debacles like Prohibition.

  • Is there any particular reason you would need a bolt-action rifle for hunting animals that don’t shoot back?

    In fact, what business have you hunting, you can buy all the meat you want in a store.

    Are you volunteering your shotgun and rifle to the cause, and turning them in Wednesday to get unnecessary weapons that can slaughter people out of circulation?

    Now that we are done with the posturing, what magical properties do you believe inure to AR-style rifles that make them particularly onerous, besides the fact that you don’t own one and don’t like the looks of them?

    If they are so bad, why didn’t the magazine-fed intermediate powered rifles prior to WWI lead to mass murder?

    Can you explain anything at all about your position other than you know what you do not like?

  • “The point was armed citizenry would be acting in service of the government.”

    The point was the armed citizenry could defend themselves, and if called upon could assemble with their own arms and defend city, state, or national government.

  • ” Ammosexual ” – that you responded, affirms your identity with the term.
    Esp since my comment wasn’t addressed to you.

    As to firearms :
    I started routinely shooting my fathers .22 Remington tube-mag pump at age 6 and have been shooting ever since.
    At age 14, I bought a 12 ga rabbit-ears side/side double barrel for hunting.
    Subsequently :
    Stevens 12 ga pump 5 round tubular-mag full-choke, hi-brass proofed.
    Mossberg .22 cal side-bolt semi-auto, tubular mag, short, long & long rifle.
    Lee-Enfield No. 5 Mk 1. .303 cal w/ 10 round staggered clip – aka the ” Jungle Carbine “.
    Winchester Mod 24, 16 ga double-barrel, s/s single trigger, choked IC/IC.
    J.P. Clabrough, exposed-hammer, 10 ga side/side double-barrel Damascus.
    Allen & Co, antique .22 cal Vest-Pocket, swing breech Derringer.
    Pietta Army Mod 1858 .44 cal 6 shot black-powder. (repro)
    Pedersol .45 cal Kentucky single-shot cap & ball, black-powder. (repro)

    FYI – I’ll be 80 in June.

    I gave all my guns & ammo away some 10 yrs ago.

    I’ve been “performing” fine ever since.

    I don’t need guns or ammo to affirm a frail male-gender identity.

    Ammosexuals do….

  • “….the AR-style rifles are not more powerful nor more deadly. ”

    Arnzen – this statement of yours is in direct contradiction to the first-hand observation of radiologist Dr Heather Sher, who was on duty when the wounded survivors of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting were being brought into the ER.

    (Dr Sher)
    ” The high-velocity (AR-15) bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends
    several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery
    to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the
    size of an orange. ”

    Arnzen – either you or Dr Sher is full-of-SH-T.

    She radiates the fragrance of a benevolent bouquet of fresh roses.
    Your stench and that of your henchmen is that of a diarrhea-filled swamp….

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

  • Millions of legal gun owners have killed less people (0) than thousands of abortion providers. Was is truly sad is how easy it is for liberals to dehumanize the human beings they don’t want in their lives, in this case, unborn children.

  • Perhaps a point of clarification is in order. I recognize the legitimate value of abortion as a medical procedure when the mother’s life is at risk. It is a sad but necessary reality that sometimes it is indeed in the interest of life, but that is a far cry from abortion because of inconvenience and lack of planning or desire to accept responsibility for another life.

  • I would observe that the abortion provider in the space designated slaughters unborn human beings on a regular basis.

  • I have a home security system. And thanks to my military responsibilities, I am indeed a skilled tactical marksman. Requirement for my job.

  • They make low grain ammo for home defense to eliminate the hazard you mention. Responsible and trained gun owners are well aware of this. And if you are really concerned about this you could go for a Judge that fires a 410 shotgun shell. You don’t even have to practice much to be effective with it for home defense.

  • The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, when our “militia” were bearing “Flintlock” “rifles” and “pistols”.

    On a good day, an experienced “militia” person might be able to fire 2 to 3 rounds a minute with a flintlock weapon.
    The “militia” person probably carried less than 30 rounds of ammunition on him.
    On
    a humid day, or in the rain or drizzle, the flint would get wet and
    wouldn’t be able to make a spark – thus rendering the gun inoperable.
    A water pistol could put a flintlock weapon out-of-business.

    The AR-15 assault type stock-weapon can fire 45 rounds-per-minute.
    When fitted with a legal (or readily available illegal) accessory – it can fire 900 rounds-a-minute.
    It can fire 100 rounds before re-loading.
    Re-loading can easily be done in 5 sec or less, and the gun can then fire another 100 rounds.

    Flintlock weapon firing
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx-b2K_91wU

    AR-15 firing
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAa-BLWLyC4

  • The justifications for AR15s are hobby and armed revolution. They aren’t home defense or hunting weapons, with better options for both. An AR15 is a military combat weapon.

    Both justifications are used by the nra.

  • There is an entire field of wound ballistics with degreed individuals who engineer bullets for the military, hunting, target shooting, and so on. Dr. Sher is not one of them.

    Reread the article.

    There are three kinds of wounds described.

    The first, which she attributes to something called an “AR-15″, which the firearm in Parkland was not, is a typical wound caused by an expanding hunting bullet such as:

    https://www.federalpremium.com/ammunition/rifle/family/vital-shok/vital-shok-trophy-bonded-tip/p223tt3

    It is designed to enter, expand in tissue expending its energy, and if it exits the other side will leave a fairly large hole. The intention is a humane single-shot kill when properly aimed. The cartridge above is intended for deer (human) sized game.

    This has nothing at all to do with “AR-15″s. The same or similar cartridges are fired from single shot, bolt action, and lever action rifles. The legal minimum length of a rifle barrel is 16″ and usually varies from 20″ to 26″, which increases bullet velocity over hand guns.

    The others she describes are typical pistol wounds. With 2-6″ barrels and cartridge suitable for firing from a hand-held weapon, these wounds are shallower and less destructive.

    The final wound she describes is the SWAT shooting, which she also attributes to an “AR-15″.

    The police, like the military, use a full metal jacket bullet which is not designed to expand in accordance with the Hague Conventions.

    A wound from this sort of bullet fired from a rifle produces a wound like a thick ice pick which, in a deer or human sized target, goes through the body. Because of its velocity it causes tissue damage, but nothing like the expanding hunting bullet.

    As it turns out “Arnzen – either you or Dr Sher is full-of-SH-T.” misses the mark.

    Dr. Sher is ignorant of wound ballistics and their cause.

    You were suckered by an anti-gun piece in the Atlantic, which has an anti-gun stance and cranks out articles regularly about both the law and the weapons that are poorly written, ungrounded, misleading propaganda just like this article.

    Here is useful objective look at wound ballistics for surgeons:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qJT03cpOx0

    Properly trained ER and combat surgeons should be familiar with this material. Dr. Sher is not.

  • The sentence “ ‘Ammosexual’ – that you responded, affirms your identity with the term. Esp since my comment wasn’t addressed to you.” seems to affirm your belief that this is your personal discussion space open only to people you happen to agree with.

    “FYI – I’ll be 80 in June.” Only if you restrict your mouth to on-line and don’t try talking like you do here in real life to people larger and younger than you who are easily offended and have impulse control issues.

    “I don’t need guns or ammo to affirm a frail male-gender identity.”

    Well, good for you patrick.

  • The First Amendment was adopted in 1791 when our “press” consisted of handset type in manually operated single page-at-a-time printing presses.

    The AR-style semi-automatic rifle cannot fire 45 rounds-per-minute because firing has to stop to change magazines.

    Nor can these rifles can fire 900 rounds-a-minute in the real world. Unlike the similar looking military weapons, which fire from an open bolt, these fire from a closed bolt. That rate of fire causes them to overheat. In addition trying to fire at that rate using something like a bump stock means the gun cannot be aimed and will eventually “slam fire”, injuring or killing the shooter, because the mechanism was not designed to shoot at that rate.

    The 100 round magazines which might permit 100 shots before reloading do not work, as the shooter in the Aurora Colorado theater shooting found out when it jammed.

    https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63?1520425876

    “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e. g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

  • Which is the opposite of Alan’s premise that they would take up arms against the government. Thank you for demonstrating my point. Agreement. Go figure.

    Interestingly enough democratic countries which actually rely on such levies have stricter gun control and far fewer guns per capita than the US.

  • Yep, you are pretty dishonest in the way you argue and have no ability to read a court decision. 🙂

  • It just does it faster.

    I have no need to know about ballistics to know that an AR 15 can kill a lot of people in a short time. Get rid of it.

  • Ben,
    I like everything you said except for the last paragraph. Not that we don’t need to outvote them, but that we should never stop trying to reason with them.

  • I can understand that, Curt, and I appreciate it, truly. But from what I have seen on these very pages alone, they aren’t listening. Their toys and paranoia are far more interesting to them than the lives of their fellow Americans.

  • The AR-style (AR-15 is a registered trademark of Colt) rifles can kill no more people in a short time than a Winchester 1907, sold in hardware stores and sporting goods stores everywhere from 1906 through 1958.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1907

    The AR-style rifles can kill no more people in a short time than a Winchester 1897 pump action shotgun sold in hardware stores and sporting goods stores everywhere from 1897 until 1957, followed by production of a clone in China still sold in Canada.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1897

    It was used by US Army in WWI as the “trench broom” and slam fires – if you hold the trigger it will fire as fast as you can pump the action.

    In short, whatever you think you “know”, you apparently don’t.

  • That is what is open to question, as the abortion wars demonstrate. If only conservatives supported some means by which abortion would become rare, like birth control, sex education, family planning, adoption by gay couples, and so forth.

    And if only they were not so overwhelmingly for things like the death penalty, foreign interventions, and massive military budgets. One might want to take their claims of being pro life much more seriously.

  • It sure is! Posing as your nemesis–someone who isn’t intimidated by your nonsense.

  • And certainly someone who is unafflicted by any facts and not confused by the nemesis of logic.

  • What, trying to make sense with someone who thinks bullets from a particular rifle develop magic qualities?

  • From what I can tell in my discussions on these pages, they would want to be talked to…

    So that they could patiently explain how your are a liberal Snowflake with no understanding of capital-T truth that hates America and hates freedom and that multiple shooting deaths that occur every single day, or 17 times in Parkland, 57 times in Las Vegas, 27 times in Sutherland Springs, or 49 times in Orlando are just the price we all must pay to protect ourselves from people who committed those crimes, or from bad guys with guns, or from our government.

    I’m a great believer in talking and communication. But the fact that we have not been able to progress AT ALL on this matter, that we are only western country that claims to be civilized that has this problem, is a good indication that talking will just not do any good.

    Outvoting them, which means showing politicians that there is a price to be paid for failure to act, may be the only things that works.

  • How about we FIRST investigate this “event” before jumping to conclusions and instigating gun control. Too many anomalies. We almost need an outside, non-biased Investigative Unit to come in and weigh the evidence. Too much corruption in the alphabet agencies.

  • “But the fact that we have not been able to progress AT ALL on this matter, that we are only western country that claims to be civilized that has this problem, is a good indication that talking will just not do any good.”

    That certainly illustrates the problem from the contra side of the discussion.

    – no mention of the Second Amendment

    – no recognition that since the 1930s a series of laws have restricted destructive devices, fully automatic weapons, a variety of handguns, and more

    – no mention that we adopted a nationwide background check for handgun purchases

    – zero indication that there is no evidence at all that more controls will achieve the goal, which always appears to be somewhere over the rainbow

    In short, you want what you want when you want it, and do not wish to impeded by facts, the Constitution, other citizens’ rights, or anything of the sort.

    Thus the pro-civil rights side has concluded that talking to you, or Dianne Feinstein, is a complete and utter waste of time.

    And I agree.

  • From what I have seen on these very pages alone facts are of little interest to you, as are other peoples’ rights, the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution itself.

  • Re: “The gun controllers cannot be reasoned with. They look for ‘root causes’ – mother did not stir his oatmeal clockwise when he was five and so he grow up a homicidal maniac …” 

    I grant that the old “he shot the place up because he was abused as a child” excuse is ridiculous, and needs to be put away for good … but it’s not used by “gun controllers.” It is, instead, used by defense attorneys who work for the accused, and usually is their desperate attempt to justify the unjustifiable. And they use it in conjunction with all sorts of crimes … because in a lot of cases they have no other excuses to use. 

    But please, by all means, don’t let that get in the way of your “if-only-everyone-in-the-country-were-armed-with-AK-47s-&-multiple-full-magazines-there’d-never-be-any-crime-and-it’d-be-heaven-on-earth” rant. 

  • Thanks for showing up to prove my point.
    we can only outvote you. and maybe, someday, we will.

  • I don’t care, Bob, if the “functional equivalent” of an AR-15 was or was not available in 1905. We need to look at society today, at what is happening now, with mass shootings, with guns deaths rising, with gun ownership rising, with cop killings rising and the correlation of number of cops killed in a state to the number of guns in the hands of the public.

    We have mass killings in schools by kids who really should not have access to a weapon capable of shooting many people within minutes. We had 49 people killed in a gay bar in Florida in 2016 and 58 killed at an outdoor concert in 2017. Is our society safer because of all the guns or are we more likely to be killed because of the easy access to so many guns?

  • I understand you don’t care, not about the law, not about facts.

    If we need to look at society today, we should consider suspending the First Amendment, which will allow us to cut the salacious movies and television that provoke violence, cut the nonsense such as happened in Charlottesville by compelling an end to viewpoint speech, and otherwise quiet things down.

    We can also scrap jury trials since they impede the operation of justice.

    However, if in lieu of that we want to become familiar with the facts and the Constitution, we’ll note that mass shootings and killings are neither common nor rising, that gun deaths have risen almost imperceptibly after declining for over a decade, that gun ownership is remaining steady, and that cop killings are rare headline-making events .

    In short, you’re describing unfounded hysteria and a rejection of every attempt to mitigate the hysteria with facts.

    That is pretty much the reason why the pro-civil rights side, my side, hasn’t found talking to your side productive.

  • Since I have not engaged in a “‘if-only-everyone-in-the-country-were-armed-with-AK-47s-&-multiple-full-magazines-there’d-never-be-any-crime-and-it’d-be-heaven-on-earth’ rant”, your comments appear even sillier than normal for you.

  • Unfortunately I’ve dealt a couple dozen times with you misstating what someone said, usually diametrically opposed to it, that going forward I intend to document what was said and your various errors.

    Otherwise there will never be an end to your silliness.

  • If you don’t think every American should be armed to the teeth, then why do you advocate every American being armed to the teeth? It’s inconsistent. 

  • Since I have not advocated that “every American should be armed to the teeth”, your post is even sillier than your usual fare.

  • Bob,
    Which facts and which rights and which parts of The Constitution are you referring to? I don’t see any indication from Ben that what you are saying is true.

  • Nor do I see any indication from Ben of a grasp of the facts, an appreciation of other peoples’ rights, recognition of the Bill of Rights, or even
    of the Constitution itself.

  • That is so pathetic, you are trying to play revisionist and pretend you weren’t completely missing the point of key points and sections.

    You want to engage in masturbatory refighting prior arguments, good luck with that.

  • It never mentions revolvers, either.

    https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63?1520425876

    “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e. g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

  • Bob,
    banning all, not some, assault weapons has had positive effects in certain countries. In fact, the tougher gun laws in Europe have contributed to Europe having far fewer mass shooting conducted by their own citizens that what occurs in America. In addition, we have had far more terrorist attacks by right-wing activists, primarily white-supremacists and anti-government activists, than we have experienced attacks from radical Islamic terrorists.

    Let me ask this question: Since you can’t stop an airplane with an assault weapon and bombs are usually hidden, how is it that a person(s) with assault weapons are going to stop bombings or planes flying into buildings? And if they do try to stop, how will they not cause collateral damage by their efforts when they enter the fray without proper training? Note that learning how to shoot a gun is not sufficient training to prepare one for a firefight. And in the case of the Las Vegas shooting, the number of people who had guns delayed the investigation and discovery of shooter.

    The idea of stricter gun control, such as an assault weapons ban, is to reduce, not eliminate mass shootings. No one can eliminate them. But by making access to more powerful weapons either more difficult or impossible, we have the opportunity to reduce certain kinds of gun violence such as mass shootings.

    It seems that you are jumping to conclusions regarding what you think Ben has written.

  • Ben,
    I responded a few of Bob’s notes. He is passionate about the subject but too hot-headed because he would rather persuade than debate/discuss. And people who are too eager to persuade recognize fewer and fewer rules and show less respect for others. But he is also arguing from a position of weakness.

  • Bob,
    What would you have him say from his opinions on the subject that would indicate a grasp of the facts, an appreciation for other people’s rights, and a recognition of the Bill of Rights?

  • I suppose noting that 300+/- 60 or so deaths from rifles of all kinds is a drop in the bucket in 30K gun deaths each year, that the 6+million law-abiding owners of AR-style rifles have rights against which his wishes must be balanced, and that the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights which raises these rights to a fundamental level precludes some of his suggestions unless the Constitution is amended, would be a beginning.

    https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63?1520425876

  • Of course, for a person who wishes to emote and make pronouncements and characterize those who disagree with him as mentally defective.

    On that we agree.

    It was a mindless conversation stopper.

  • There is no evidence that the gun laws in other countries have a thing to do with their rates of gun crime. Theirs were lower than ours and remain lower than ours.

    There is no such thing as an “assault weapon”. That phrase was coined by Josh Sugarmann the communications director (propaganda minister) for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns (now known as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence) in 1988 specifically to attempt to demonize rifles which had been available since 1905 and had never been used in any significant number of crimes.

    There IS something called an “assault rifle”, but because they are fully automatic they are regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and no new ones for sale to civilians have been made or imported since 1986.

    The number of people who had guns in Las Vegas is a direct result of the fact that they have a right to have firearms as a result of the Second Amendment.

  • https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63?1520425876

    “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e. g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

    You would never know you have a degree in political science. Did they skip the Constitution altogether, or just the Bill of Rights?

  • We’re in agreement there.
    The positions of weakness he argues from:
    He’s the smartest guy in the room.
    Everyone else is a poopy head.

  • A few things :

    ‘ ” We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. ” ‘

    Is this quote (within its entirety) taken from a SCOTUS ruling or an argument that was perhaps proffered to SCOTUS ?

    Your observations about the rate-of-fire and cap of the AR type rifle aren’t correct.

    ” The AR-style semi-automatic rifle cannot fire 45 rounds-per-minute because firing has to stop to change magazines. ”

    The ROF of a weapon isn’t dependent on mag capacity. A statement from ignorance.

    ” Nor can these rifles can fire 900 rounds-a-minute in the real world. ”

    You attempt to buttress this statement by referring to bolt mechanism design and construction. You’re assuming all AR and AR types are made with exactly the same design and materials, and tolerance specs – and inspection standards. That’s absurd.

    AR types made in Bangladesh will not meet the same specs or performance of an AR type made in Germany or the US. This also holds true for 100 rd mags – which have been readily available for quite some time.

    You offer nothing but uninformed boiler-plate.

  • Bob,
    All too familiar with the Heller decision. It changed the direction of the Court from past decisions that considered the context of a well-regulated Militia, which is, btw, well defined in The Constitution. What is clear when exegeting The Constitution, is that the anti-Federalist position is not at all represented in any part of The Constitution or the 2nd Amendment with regard to gun ownership.

    If you are going minimize the 300+/-60 deaths by contrasting it with 30K deaths each year, then you really don’t understand The Constitution. The Constitution is not about weighing numbers, it is about what duties and powers the different branches of government have and then it list the rights of the individual even if that individual consists of one single person.

    What are the gun rights according to The Constitution? Are they unlimited but for the law-biding citizen only? What about the law-abiding citizen who collects all the different kinds of guns he/she wants and then goes a astray with the most power guns available? And what about the part of the 2nd Amendment that states the purpose of the right to bear arms? The purpose is to maintain a well regulated Militia. What are one’s gun rights outside of that as specified in The Constitution? What is necessary to defend oneself? I ask that last question because outside of mass shootings, assault weapons are so rarely used in crimes.

    BTW, what the Court, in the article you provided a link to, didn’t mention about the well-regulated Militia that applies to the anti-Federalist interpretation is that the same well-regulated Militia mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is the one Congress is responsible for organizing, arming, and disciplining (Article 1, Section 8, #16). Not only that, the purpose of the Militia was to enforce the laws of the Union, put down insurrections, and repel invasions (Article 1, Section 8, #15). The Militia is put under the command of the President (Article 2, Section 2, #1). And one of the reasons why all of these duties were assigned to the Militia instead of a standing army is that by making the Federal government depend on the people, it would prohibit it from being overbearing. Another reason for depending on the Militia was that doing so would limit the size of any army that the Government could raise (Federalist Papers #46). The structure of the defense that came with relying on the Militia instead of a standing army would prohibit tyranny from the Federal gov’t. So it is not the weapon of choice made by the individual–and remember that it is the Congress that is responsible for arming the Militia–that protects us from tyranny.

    We don’t have a Militia anymore, we have a standing Army. But even here, the anti-Federalist position offers no help unless the individual or group can arm itself with comparable weapons that the US military has. But to do so, it would have to act outside the bounds for a well-regulated Militia defined by The Constitution because according to The Constitution, oversight of the Militia is practiced by the state and the Federal governments. The Constitution recognizes no right to form autonomous militias.

    Note that since we have a standing army and no Militia, there is a different group that protects us from Federal Tyranny. It is the Federal Court system including the Supreme Court. Such eliminates the need for the anti-Federalist position that was made moot by the continued support for a standing army and the disappearance of the Militia.

    Now we could ask what about the effectiveness of strict gun laws that other countries experience? And we could talk about the strict guns laws of Illinois and Chicago and how they are offset by the lax gun laws of a couple of their neighboring states. And unless the 17+ students, faculty, and staff who died in the latest mass shooting are just a drop in the bucket for those 6M+ law-abiding gun owners, note that public opinion and most gun owners are asking for stricter gun control laws than what our federal government is delivering.

  • And what are those “some people”?

    Everyone who disagrees with him.

    You’re right, it does not stop him from conversing with people who agree with him, everyone else suffers from an ammunition-related neurosis IHHO.

  • Bob,
    I am not familiar with all of the evidence regarding the rates of gun crimes, but I am familiar with mass shootings that exist in Europe vs the US. And, by both numbers and percentages, there are far fewer mass shootings in Western Europe, Western because they have the strictest gun laws, than in the US. And the only Western European nation that has a problem with mass shooting does not have a problem with its own citizens conducting the mass shootings. Compare the US with Western Europe and see how many many mass shootings that took place that were conduced by citizens of the nation in which the shootings occurred.

    BTW, such doesn’t indicate the need for us to build the Wall here because the vetting system used to determine who gets to come has been very effective.

    And you missed the point about Las Vegas. That so many people were carrying neither stopped the mass shooter nor was helpful to the police as they investigated the shooting.

  • Bob,
    The some people refers only to a subset of gun-rights advocates, not everyone. I prefer not to write that way, he does out of frustration from past conversations. I have a great deal of respect for Ben. He’s a good person whom I trust..

  • “It changed the direction of the Court from past decisions that considered the context of a well-regulated Militia, which is, btw, well defined in The Constitution.”

    Please provide a list of the “past decisions” from which you believe it changed direction.

    You appear to be relying on other people’s assessments of past decisions rather than actually being familiar with any of them.

    What is clear is what is written in the Heller decision.

    What are the gun rights according to The Constitution?

    https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63?1520425876

    “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

    The purpose is not to maintain a well regulated Militia.

    “(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

    “(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.”

    The purpose is to maintain an armed citizenry, the unorganized militia, so that if an organized militia is to be assembled, it can draw from the armed populace.

    Are you absolutely sure you have actually read the Heller decision?

    The well-regulated Militia mentioned in the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment is the one Congress is responsible for organizing, arming, and disciplining (Article 1, Section 8, #16). However, that is not the militia guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. That is the organized militia.

    We actually do have militias.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

    That the strict guns laws of Illinois and Chicago are offset by the lax gun laws of a couple of their neighboring states is largely theoretical and completely unproven.

    Without a demand for guns in Chicago by lawless gangs as a result of rampant crime, regardless of neighboring states gun laws there would not be massive homicides each year in Chicago. The problems in Chicago are home-grown.

    No, public opinion and most gun owners are not asking for stricter gun control laws than what our federal government is delivering.

  • “We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.” was a direct quote from Heller. Again, the entire paragraph:

    https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63?1520425876

    “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e. g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

    “The ROF of a weapon isn’t dependent on mag capacity. A statement from ignorance.”

    What you wrote was “The AR-15 assault type stock-weapon can fire 45 rounds-per-minute.”

    What you apparently MEANT to write was that an AR-style is capable of firing 45 rounds per minute (RPM). That, however, is incorrect.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_fire

    For manually operated weapons, which includes the AR-style rifles being discussed, the rate of fire is governed by the training of the operator within some mechanical limitations. One of those mechanical limitations is the magazine capacity.

    Your entire defense of the even more inflated 900 rounds-a-minute borders on the bizarre. Assuming normal manufacturing tolerances, the bolt mechanism design and construction are the primary limiting factors. When you write “You’re assuming all AR and AR types are made with exactly the same design and materials, and tolerance specs – and inspection standards. That’s absurd. AR types made in Bangladesh will not meet the same specs or performance of an AR type made in Germany or the US.” you cut the ground out from under your own inflated estimate.

    Current production AR-style rifles ALL operate from a closed bolt thanks to ATF regulations going back 30+ years that were specifically designed to make these rifles unconvertible to fully automatic fire.

    As to “….100 rd mags – which have been readily available for quite some time”, have you actually handled or used ANY of these magazines? I have never found a single one that worked properly. In addition, the ONLY shooting that I have been able to find involving an AR-style rifle with a 100 round magazine was the theater shooting in Aurora, CO, and it jammed.

    You offer nothing but uninformed speculation and Bloomberg-sourced propaganda.

  • Bob,
    No, what Bloomberg article showed was the opinion of the Court that decided the Heller Case about Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller cases. That is all it showed. Time is limited right now so I am going to address the 2nd Amendment directly:


    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 mention of the Militia shows the purpose of not interfering with the right to bear arms. Again, the Militia has already been well-defined by the rest of The Constitution but what the rest of The Constitution said about the Militia is totally regarded in the Heller decision and only the Anti-Federalist position is assumed to be the sole interpretation of the Amendment. The anti-Federalist position seems neglects to reflect the governmental oversight of the Militia and even suggests that Militias can be autonomous. This blatantly violates the Constitutional bounds set for the Militia. And it shows a lack of understanding in how the Militia was to prevent Federal tyranny. The reliance on the Militia set in place a structure that was to prevent Federal tyranny. It wasn’t the actual weapons assigned to those in the Militia that did tha. This shows and ideological predisposition by the majority of the Court in its reading of The Constitution..

    The right to bear arms seems to be understood and that includes the right to self-defense. At the same time, it also appears that the mention of the need for the Militia is the reason for why that right should not be infringed on implies that the right to bear arms can be infringed on.

  • That was not a Bloomberg article.

    That was THE text of opinion and dissents of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

    The organized Militia was described in the body of the Constitution, but the second amendment is about the unorganized militia.

    I would actually take the time to read the decision.

    For a layman that could take an hour or more.

    If you take notes to look up terms and references, including the briefs referenced, you could easily blow three hours or more.

    For your convenience, here is the actual case page:

    http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dc-v-heller/

    There you find the opinion and dissents, briefs filed supporting various positions.

    Bon appetit.

  • I am not in a position to judge which posters are good and which are bad.

    I deal solely – to the extent possible – in ideas and whether they have merit and are supported, or are simply unsupported personal opinions that constitute nothing more profound than what the individual likes or dislikes, like Ben’s comments.

  • Since the people carrying were exercising a constitutional right, that they neither stopped the mass shooter (obviously because they did not know where the mass shooter was) nor was it helpful to police is not relevant to anything under discussion.

  • Bob,
    I might have misspoken, but I understood that was from the courts. And no, the 2nd Amendment in its reference to a well-regulated militia is not referring to unorganized militias. The 2nd Amendment itself is a partial copy from the 13th statement from the Virginia Declaration of Rights written in 1776. In that 13th statement, the well-regulated militia is under civil authority. And the only Constitutional references to militias are those that are under the partial oversight of the Federal government and the partial oversight of the state. There is no exegetical evidence supporting your claim that the 2nd Amendment is referring to unorganized militias. Read The Constitution.

  • The Heller decision is rife with “exegetical evidence supporting …. that the 2nd Amendment is referring to unorganized militias.”

    Read Heller and get back to us.

  • Well !

    ( patrick ) ” FYI – I’ll be 80 in June.”

    (Bob Arnzen) ” Only if you restrict your mouth to on-line and don’t try talking like
    you do here in real life to people larger and younger than you who are
    easily offended and have impulse control issues. ”

    An example of “Hate-Speech” long voiced by mentally-deranged and dangerous Ammosexuals – and others of such ilk – Fascists come to mind….

    And you Bob Arnzen – are the author of those demented hateful words !

    Why – you must have been genuflecting last night to an image of Saint Charlton – or perhaps Saint Wayne !

    Or perhaps you got your VR courage from popping a few Viagra !

    Or maybe you were inspired by the ravings of Harris & Klebold at Columbine, or Lanza at Sandy Hook or more recently – Cruz at Parkland.

    Your comment might be interpreted as a terrostic threat to my person…

    ” So if you see something you know shouldn’t be there—or someone’s behavior that doesn’t seem quite right—say something. ”

    I’ll be showing our RNS exchanges to the FBI.

    patrick

  • No, that was humor missed by an elderly malcontent, not hate speech.

    If you think my comment might be interpreted as a terroristic threat to your person, I advise you to contact Religion News AND Disqus. I will provide email addresses if you do not have them.

    Be sure when you talk to the FBI you provide a list of the medications you’re on, any mental health professionals you’re currently seeing, any you have seen in the past, and a list of anyone else you think is following you or is out to get you.

    They’ll want a complete file, I am sure.

  • Bob,
    I read the Heller decision a while ago, and there is no exegetical evidence supporting your claim. Rather, the Heller decision seems to based on an eisegesis approach to interpreting the 2nd Amendment. But, if you disagree, list from The Constitution the evidence of which you speak.

  • In looking at “Nor can these rifles can fire 900 rounds-a-minute in the real world”, I believe I can put this 900 rpm into a understandable perspective.

    The Thompson fully automatic (pull trigger once, fires until ammo is gone) Submachine Gun aka Chicago Typewriter of the gang wars in the 20s and 30s, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_submachine_gun

    fired at 600-800 rpm, lower than what you claim for an AR-style semi-automatic which fires one shot per trigger pull.

    The M3 fully automatic submachine gun, aka the Grease Gun, of Korea and Vietnam

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_submachine_gun

    fired at 450 rpm.

    The Soviet bloc PPS submachine gun, used from WWII through Vietnam

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPS_submachine_gun

    fired at 600-700 rpm.

    The PPSh-41 Soviet bloc submachine gun, used from WWII through Vietnam, nicknamed the “Burp gun” because it rate of fire was so high you could not distinguish individual shots

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPSh-41

    fired at 900-1000 rpm.

    So, you’re claiming a semi-automatic one shot per pull rifle exceeds three of most common fully automatic military submachine guns and matches the fastest submachine gun used from WWII through Vietnam.

  • Give me one item decided for which you believe the Heller decision lacks “exegetical evidence” narrow enough that I can actually respond to it. Your broad comments to this point would require writing a book.

    However, it is fair to point out that whatever your impression of the Heller decision might be, it, not your opinion, is the law of the land. The case is not going to be reargued, any more than Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) is going to be revisited.

    It is also worth pointing out that the justices involved did this for a living, while you and I are somewhat less qualified.

  • Bob,
    If you knew what exegetical evidence was, you would know that all you had to do was to consult the text of The Constitution or include with that the text of the The Virginia Declaration of Rights on which some of The Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment, is based. That doesn’t require writing a book especially since the original texts are in English. Perhaps if the original texts were in another language, you would have to a lengthy task. But that is not the case.

    So it seems that you neither know what exegesis nor eisegesis means and thus are confused on the difference and the claims you are making.

    And I understand the difference between my opinion and the laws of the land. But I asked a simple question of you that would allow you to prove your claim about the kind of Militias referred to in the 2nd Amendment and you didn’t understand the kind of proof I was asking for and seem to try to bluff your way out of answering.

    So take care.

  • ” …. the lives of their fellow Americans. ”

    My daughter is a dedicated elementary school math teacher for 25+ yrs.
    She has been honored with several awards including the Governors Award.

    All schools in her state are mandated by state law to hold two lock-down drills monthly.

    I would like to see these intransigent gun-rights advocates huddle in the corner of a classroom, under lock-down, with the terrified kids asking the terrified teacher whether they are going to be all shot-up and killed – on he spot.

    Let the advocates then explain to the cowering kids, their interpretation of the Second Amendment, and their opposition to weapons designed specifically to kill humans. And answer the kids questions – with the advocate also huddled in the corner – while trying to keep the kids calm.

    Let the gun advocates – and politicians – experience the terror these kids are subjected to – for an entire school yr.

    ” From that moment on, I couldn’t bear reading the stories of what had
    transpired within those school walls and so found myself avoiding the
    impassioned, anguished speeches of the brave parents and teachers of
    those senselessly slaughtered children. ”

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/parkland-shooting-american-dream_us_5a9ec566e4b06f37ce9b72f0

  • All that to simply avoid asking a clear direct question: e.g,:

    “The Heller decision claims that x militia is referred to in the Second Amendment.”

    “What evidence does it adduce in support of that claim?”

    You can’t seem to understand how to ask a simple direct answerable question, and seem to try to bluff your way out by writing “But I asked a simple question of you that would allow you to prove your claim about the kind of Militias referred to in the 2nd Amendment and you didn’t understand the kind of proof I was asking for and seem to try to bluff your way out of answering.”

    Unfortunately I am have been through this sort of thing with you in the past.

    If you can ask a question that can be answered, I will tackle it.

  • Bob,
    How complicated is the following request:


    I read the Heller decision a while ago, and there is no exegetical
    evidence supporting your claim. Rather, the Heller decision seems to
    based on an eisegesis approach to interpreting the 2nd Amendment. But, if you disagree, list from The Constitution the evidence of which you speak.

    If you knew what I meant by exegetical evidence regarding your claim about the 2nd amendment referring to unorganized militias, you would have quoted from The Constitution or include the Viriginia Declaration of Rights because the latter served as a basis for Madison’s writing of the Bill of Rights. Or you could have even referred to Federalist #29 and/or #46 because they provide historical context to understanding The Constitution.

    Rather than even giving a partial list, you referred me to another document and its arguments about and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It did not offer the exegetical evidence you claimed it did. The only exegetical evidence it provides is in its attempts to define certain terms used in The Constitution and its reference to statement #13 from the Virginia Declaration of Rights and it did all of that from a strongly ideological point of view. All the other information was about people’s attempts to interpret the 2nd Amendment.

    Again, the exegetical evidence can only come from The Constitution or any document on which it is based such as the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Neither document refers to an unorganized militia. Rather the Virginia Declaration of Rights says he following about militias:


    That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state

    Again, we are talking about well-regulated, not unorganized, militias. And, in The Constitution, the Militia is under the control of state and federal governments.

    Now the majority claimed that well-regulated does not necessarily refer to a militia that is under the control of any government. But there is no text in The Constitution that recognizes any other kind of militia. In addition, comes the second part of #13 from the Virginia Declaration of Rights about militias and standing armies:


    that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

    Notice the general term ‘military’ after the Declaration compared the militia to standing armies. After all, one of the purposes of both would be to defend the state. And yet, the military ‘should be under the strict subordination of and governed by civil power.’ Such fits Madison’s description of the militia in Federalist 46. And since it was Madison who wrote The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Madison does not see a militia as existing apart from a government. Such would be dangerous anyway. And this is a point that not is addressed by the majority opinion. In addition, how can a well-regulated militia be tasked with the defense of a free state without it being under the supervision of a government.

    I don’t think you have carefully read the decision. Nor did you make any effort to provide even a little exegetical evidence supporting your point. You might want to note the following from the decision:


    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    We could debate the decision, but it is better to stick with The Constitution and those documents that provide historical context for interpreting The Constitution.

  • Awww, snowflake! Ya know, I really am beginning to believe that you and Bobby Joe are the same person.
    Wouldn’t that be interesting. It might call your integrity into question.

  • If you are going to go around demanding that ammosexuals show compassion, pity, and empathy…
    well, then! There is simply no hope for you!
    I am 100% in agreement with you. But at least the kids are getting this kind of a drill. It might save some lives, since the ammosexuals aren’t willing to do anything else except arm teachers. and perhaps it will encourage them to take a strong anti-firearm stance when they are older.

  • I have never supported the notion that the Second Amendment was about resisting the government.

    It was and remains a guarantee of a personal individual right to keep and bear arms.

  • Copying and pasting that into my word processor, I find you used 675 words to – apparently you believe – ask a question.

    I have read the entire post five times.

    Please reread it and provide from it the sentence, or perhaps two sentences, that actually ask a clear and answerable question.

  • Bob,
    We both agree that there is some right to bear arms though it is stated In the Heller decision that such a right is not absolute in terms of all, such as felons and those who are mentally ill, in terms of kinds of weapons, and in terms of location.

    But tell me if you do not believe that the right to bear arms was about resisting the government, what is the purpose of the unorganized militia?

  • Bob,
    Now you are just trying to find fault though you were the one who refused to give a simple answer to a simple request. That request was:


    But, if you disagree, list from The Constitution the evidence of which you speak.

    You stated:


    Give me one item decided for which you believe the Heller decision lacks
    “exegetical evidence” narrow enough that I can actually respond to it.
    Your broad comments to this point would require writing a book.

    I made a simple request which you expanded to include the Heller decision and the need to write a book. All you had to do is go through the 4 or 5 passages in The Constitution that mention the militia to at least give a partial answer to.

    So you can criticize the copy and paste, it started from your refusal to answer a simple request. But your criticism and this answer is a distraction from the subject at hand. And what you think would require a book would actually demand that you cite documents such as Federalist #29 and #46 as well as the Virginia Declaration of Rights or any other documents that were a part of the writing of The Constitution or by the then contemporary documents that interpreted The Constitution. The arguments made in Heller that use those references are not exegetical evidence as much as their interpretations. The exegetical evidence is found in the text of those documents.

  • This brief for the States of Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washignton, West Virginia, and Wyoming in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) summarizes it well:

    http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCu31States.pdf

    Excerpts from the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008):

    http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63

    “‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that `the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.’”

    “This contrasts markedly with the phrase ‘the militia’ in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the ‘militia’ in colonial America consisted of a subset of ‘the people’ — those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to ‘keep and bear Arms’ in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as ‘the people.’ “

    ***

    “From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that ‘bear arms’ had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to ‘bear arms in defense of themselves and the state’ or ‘bear arms in defense of himself and [*585] the state.’[fn8] It is clear from those formulations that ‘bear arms’ did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense ‘of one’s person or house’ — what he called the law of ‘self preservation.’ 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, § 21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution’); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.[fn9] These provisions demonstrate — again, in the most analogous linguistic context — that ‘bear arms’ was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.”

    And there are extensive comments after that.

    Where is the unorganized militia today? The law which set up the National Guard, the Militia Act of 1903

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

    repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia (per Title 10, Section 311) as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.

  • Still no denial of the assertion. A simple yes or no to that question would be sufficient.

  • As any hunter shouldknow, guns are dangerous and lethal. Hunters do not usually buy weapons considering humans game. I am not against the right to have guns. Just the right to have weapons designed to kill humans.

  • 6+million AR-style gun owners did not buy weapons considering humans game.

    Any weapon that can kill a deer can kill a human.

  • Bobby Joe: Of course, for a person who wishes to emote and make pronouncements and characterize those who disagree with him as mentally defective.

    Joe bob: I am not in a position to judge which posters are good and which are bad.

    Bobby joe: From what I have seen on these very pages alone facts are of little interest to you, as are other peoples’ rights, the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution itself.

    Joe bob: I am not in a position to judge which posters are good and which are bad.

    bobby joe: Everyone who disagrees with him. You’re right, it does not stop him from conversing with people who agree with him, everyone else suffers from an ammunition-related neurosis IHHO.

    Joe bob: I am not in a position to judge which posters are good and which are bad.

  • Is this something to wallpaper over your complete ignorance about the Second Amendment, firearms laws, firearms themselves altogether, or simply to show not everyone is as completely ignorant as you are, Mr. Ben In Oakland?

  • Bob,
    So far, you have yet to provide exegetical evidence to back your claims. When I ask a simple question, you provide links to interpretations of The Constitution, which was from an anti-Federalist position, , not statements from the original documents. In the meantime, you complain about my copying and pasting so many words. In essence, you haven”t answered the question. Rather you would have me read over the 600+ words that I copy and pasted.

    While the document you provided carries certain views, the views don’t coincide with original and supporting documents. After all, the term was first used in the Viriginia Declaration of Rights pertaining to the militia of Virginia, not to the United States. That the Militia is to guarantee a free state and is to be subject to civil power, and how that civil power is split between the States and the Federal gov’t is clearly stated when reviewing both The Constitution and the Virginia Declaration of Rights. In addition, besides the fact that the author of the 2nd Amendment linked militias to governments and that the statement from the Virginia Declaration of Rights explicitly states that all military must be under civil power, you insist that the 2nd Amendment refers solely to unorganized militias. And rather than providing exegetical support for that, you provide interpretations from the anti-Federalist perspective and I guess you consider their interpretations as authoritatively answering the questions we have been discussing. And that the documents you provided are talking about the right to bear arms apart from the Militia which was not my last question for you.. I asked a simple question and you addressed another question.

    And please note what was written from your bloomberg article:


    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts [***647] of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 626-628.

    From your own reference, the right bear arms is declared not to be an ‘absolute right.’ The phrase ‘shall not be infringed on’ refers solely to the Militia. Seeing that the right to bear arms is not absolute, according to the link you provided and the not be infringed on refers to the Militia, then local, state, and federal governments can put restrictions on the right to bear arms.

    Now, I never said that the right to bear arms was resticted only to those in the mlitia–which does not exist anymore. THe whole issue that both Ben and I are raising with you is whether the right to bear arms is absolute. Again, from a reference you supplied, the answer is a clear ‘NO!‘ And yet, you act as if the right to bear arms is an absolute right. And you insulted Ben over that while he was referring solely to a subset of gun rights advocates.

    IN the meantime, I am waiting for you to provide exegetical evidence fo your claims rather than interpretations written by people whose views you agree with.

    IN addition, should you read Federalist #29 and #46, you will find that the use of the Militia to defend the nation from foreign and domestic enemies makes the use of a standing army not needed according to the first source and impractical according to the 2nd source.

    Again , citing the interpretations of others who come from a particular ideological viewpoint is not providing exegetical evidence. For that, you, not others, need to go to the available texts, show how they back your claim, and then you can provide the interpretations of others. Otherwise, you are demanding that we just accept the views of those who write from the anti-federalist perspecitive.

  • Give me an example of what you consider “exegetical evidence”, no more than two sentences.

    Exegesis is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, and that is precisely what the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) does.

    I understand for reasons known only to you that you dislike the opinion.

    As to “back your claims”, note that I present what the law currently is as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The last time I argued what I thought it meant was before the opinion came down with Alan Dershowitz in an email exchange. After the opinion was rendered, differences over potential interpretations became moot. So, I have no “claims” to “back”.

    Btw, you did not “ask a simple question”, you cranked out over 600 words. And they meandered about like this last post to which I am responding.

    The notion that the document I “provided carries certain views that don’t coincide with original and supporting documents” is absurd since it is the opinion of the Supreme Court which reasoned in detail including many citations to the original and supporting documents. Get a grip, my good man.

    “And please note what was written from your bloomberg article:”

    The Supreme Court decision, not “the bloomberg article”.

    “From your own reference, the right bear arms is declared not to be an ‘absolute right.’”

    To this point we have not discussed what is protected beyond an individual right.

    I do get the impression that you are operating out of an OCD and/or autistic spectrum in trying to zero in on one or more issues, but if you cannot explain what you consider “exegetical evidence” in no more than two sentences, continue to consider the current law “my claims”, and otherwise can’t get your focus, I am having to call this one quits.

  • Bob,
    Exegesis literally means reading out of the text. It’s contrasted with eisegesis, which means reading into the text. When I asked for exegetical evidence to prove your claim, I am asking for you to cite the portions of the relevant texts which support your claims. Then state why you think it means what you say it means. Citing other people’s views can be helpful but it is too easy to become overly reliant on the views of others. I want you to go to the original texts itself. By citing the decision, you were citing the work of other people, not your exegesis of the text.

    Relevant texts here include The Constitution, other texts on which The Constitution is based, texts that are written by the same author as they deal with The Constitution, and other text from contemporary colleagues that can shed light on the text as written by the original author.These are the texts we should be citing. But I have mentioned most of that before so your diagnosis is not only inappropriate, it is based on misinformation. After discussing that, then bring in the Heller decision or .briefs or other documents that try to interpret The Constitution from different time periods.

    I say all of this because in seminary, we were taught to first deal with the original documents in their original languages. Unfortunately, lack of use has caused me to lose what Greek and Hebrew knowledge I had. But the texts we are dealing with are written in English. That doesn’t mean that we will understand all of the terms and references, but we have to deal with those original texts firsts.

    BTW, I know bloomberg site contains the decision but I misspoke because of the location of the site where the decision was posted. And I think we covered that before.

    Finally, in my quoting from the decision from the Bloomberg site stating that the riight to bear arms is not absolute, I was referring to the protected individual right., which is what most of what the brief you provided a link to addressed. I asked a very simple question. So you mentioned the Militia Acts of 1792 and 1903.. But please note the date of the first 2 Militia acts was 1792 and the last one was 1903, they are after the fact. Unless there is something in the text of those acts that references the 2nd Amendment in a way that shows that that Amendment was referring to unorganized militias, that isn’t exegetical evidence, it is after the fact evidence. BTW, I did overlook that reference in my last comment to you.

  • I of II
    “Exegesis literally means reading out of the text.”

    Considering that most of the language in the Second Amendment involves terms of art that are grounded in usage that is arcane to us, I am not sure what your approach is going to provide other than confusion requiring reference to other materials in order to resolve that confusion.

    For example, the term “militia” predates the Constitution and the Second Amendment, and so how it was used and understood is necessary to understand why the terms even appear rather than simple 21st century business English.

    I am afraid your approach is going to result in the sort of thing that one encounters when an earnest young man shows up at the door with a KJV Bible and a plethora of proof texts memorized, all out of context, and informs you that one should be not be a Catholic because Jesus said “Call no man father”. Context is everything.

    Even modern legal documents are undecipherable without a knowledge of the legal lexicon and the relevant statutes under which the document was prepared.

    The Militia Act of 1792 implemented the Constitution’s provision for the calling forth of the Militia and was passed within two years of the Constitution’s approval, so it is surely relevant since it reflected that early understanding of what had just been adopted.

    However, in order of adoption, the sections which contain the word “militia” first from the Constitution including amendments, followed by the 1792 Militia Act:

    Article I, Section 8

    “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

    “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

    Article II, Section 2

    “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

    Amendment II

    “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.”

    Amendment V

    “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

    Militia Act of 1792:

    “An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.”

    “I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside….”

    “That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.”

    And in plain English summary:

    Article I – There is no standing Militia, but the militia is “called forth”. They have an existence beyond that of service to the United States when not called forth and the governance of them is the responsibility of the states, which trains them according to the discipline prescribe by Congress.

    Article II – When a militia of any of the several states is in the service of the United States, the President is their Commander in Chief.

    to II of II

  • II of II

    Amendment II – The right of the people to own and carry arms shall not be infringed.

    Amendment V – The right of presentment or indictment by a Grand Jury for a capital or otherwise infamous crime is inapplicable to the militia in actual service in war or public danger.

    Militia Act of 1792 – Every free able-bodied white male citizen of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years, shall be enrolled in the militia of the state of residence. Every enrolled member shall provide himself with arms and appear armed when called out to exercise or into service, which arms shall be exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

  • I excerpted every mention of militia from the pertinent documents. I then summarized them in plain English.

    Now let me return for a moment to:

    “But I have mentioned most of that before so your diagnosis is not only inappropriate, it is based on misinformation.”

    In your humble opinion. It was and is appropriate, and was excerpted from the opinion in District of Columbia v Heller, heretofore referred to by you as “the bloomberg article”:

    https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63?1520560614

    It is a post-graduate course in legal analysis by a first-rate scholar, Antonin Scalia.

    If he goes one way, and you go another, his way is preferable. He’s the expert. You’re the former seminarian.

    Just so we understand that.

  • Btw, the “position of weakness” involves holding the same opinion as the Supreme Court of the United States, while your position appears to be gainsaying the Supreme Court without any legal training.

    I would characterize the latter as a position of weakness since the former is actually the law.

  • Bob,
    If the approach is used in studying Scriptures that are written in different languages, then why wouldn’t it work for texts that use some arcane words provided that we could access the writings of those who understood the words? And if we can’t access those meanings, then how is it that you can be so sure that the 2nd Amendment refers to unorganized militias? IN addition, what makes a militia unorganized?

    Regarding Article 1, I don’t think ‘calling forth’ is an arcane term. It is directing the Militia to take some form of action. The status of the militia prior to the calling forth seems to be the real question. For the Militia did not consist of many, if not some or no, full-time soldiers. THe question is really about the state of a given militia prior to the ‘calling forth.’ Here on needs to realize that while Congresss provided for the organizing of the militias, the States had a hand in forming the militias in terms of appointing officers and the training of the Militia according what Congress determine. All of that is in Article 1. .In addition, Federalist Paper #29 gives an idea of the state of the Militia prior to being called forth. And, as seen in the Virginia Declaration of RIghts,/i>, Virginia already possessed a Militia. Its beginning started in with the Revolutionary War. One only needs to research how other states formed their militias and follow what happened after the Revolutionary War to see the status of the different militias prior to being called forth.

    Not sure of why you referred to Article II.

  • Bob,
    Realize that if all other first-rate scholars shared Saclia’s views, then you would have apoint. But they don’t and that is evident in the Heller decision. THe only one you are citing here is the one you agree with. In addition, first-rate scholars can have such loyalty to their ideologies that they read into the text when trying to interpret more than reading out of the text. We see that in theology all of the time.

    And, btw, you are neglecting to mention my admission that I mispoke. But the end game here seems to be that the opinion of Scalia, a first-rate scholar, is automatically superior to that of a former seminarian who occasionally misspeaks when referring to sources based on credentials alone. THat kind of logic was often used in wrongful ways in Church history.

    In addition, what I deemed as inappropriate and based on a misinformation was your personal comments about me, not the Heller decision. The basis for your claim was that I could not explain what exegetical evidence was even though I had done in two previous comments. Those two prevoius comments showed the misinformaton you were operating from.

  • Bob,
    Aren’t you forgetting that the opinion of many Supreme Court decisions is not a monolith. Isn’t there the finding of the majority of the Court and the Minority. And thus you have justices that disagree with each other?

    Now if you want to make me the subject, the conversation is over. If you want to look at the exegetical evidence, which you seem to shy away from, and examine the reasoning used by Supreme Court justices who disagree with each other, that is fine.

  • As to “if you want to make me the subject, the conversation is over”, here is what I commented on:

    “I responded a few of Bob’s notes. He is passionate about the subject but too hot-headed because he would rather persuade than debate/discuss. And people who are too eager to persuade recognize fewer and fewer rules and show less respect for others. But he is also arguing from a position of weakness.”

    Put that in your pipe, smoke it for awhile, and either put on your big boy pants or slink off.

    As to “Aren’t you forgetting that the opinion of many Supreme Court decisions is not a monolith. Isn’t there the finding of the majority of the Court and the Minority.”

    The opinion which binds is a monolith. For example, I believe the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) to be a legal bit of dreck, poorly reasoned, based on what Kennedy wished to be true, and so on. It is the law of the land and I never forget that.

    The dissents are what are called “losers” as far the law is concerned.

  • “Realize that if all other first-rate scholars shared Saclia’s views, then you would have apoint. But they don’t and that is evident in the Heller decision.”

    Even those who disagreed with him acknowledged Scalia’s acumen, scholarship, and erudition. I may almost totally disagree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but there is no doubt she has a first-class legal mind.

    As far as legal analysis goes “the end game here seems to be that the opinion of Scalia, a first-rate scholar, is automatically superior to that of a former seminarian” is probably an accurate assessment. That’s why his opinion is the law, and yours is not.

    However, for the sake of discussion, I did wade through the source material, excerpt every reference to “militia”, and give me impression of what their import in plain English. I note this morning zero response to that exercise.

    “… your claim was that I could not explain what exegetical evidence was even though I had done in two previous comments.”

    Odd. When asked to provide a sentence or two demonstrating that, the resulting silence was deafening.

    I am sure you’re about to demonstrate your exegetical prowess on the material I excerpted specifically so we could proceed on your exegetical quest.

  • Bob,
    So you are only concerned with wht the winners say. And those who lose can be ignored because they are not in the majority. Do you apply that principel to all past Supreme Court decisions?

    Also, are you considering that what logically follows your statements here is that what Alito says is only wise when the majority agree with him. That doesn’t seem like a practice that people who enjoy thinking would embrace.

    Finally, if lashing out at others is your view of what it means to wear big boy pants, then shop only in the children’s clothing section where they have big boy pants rather than in the adult section. And our conversation is over..

  • No, we’re discussing law, not matters of taste.

    Of course our conversation is over.

    Getting a taste of your own medicine is the last thing you can handle, as this morning’s one paragraph in response to my effort towards providing the grist for exegesis demonstrated.

    As to “lashing out at others”, you’re the author of ““He is passionate about the subject but too hot-headed because he would rather persuade than debate/discuss. And people who are too eager to persuade recognize fewer and fewer rules and show less respect for others.”

    I am not particularly impressed.

  • “If the approach is used in studying Scriptures that are written in different languages, then why wouldn’t it work for texts that use some arcane words provided that we could access the writings of those who understood the words?”

    The source materials are completely different.

    Scriptures involve narratives, metaphors, symbolism, law-giving, poetry, revelation in languages which connote things – anamnesis for example – which really have no counterpart in English.

    Legal opinions, or the Constitution, eschew metaphors, symbolism, and poetry in favor of clear direct structure communication because they are intended to settle a controversy or provide clear instructions. The only counterpart to some thing like the Greek “anamnesis” would be legal terms of art.

    “And if we can’t access those meanings, then how is it that you can be so sure that the 2nd Amendment refers to unorganized militias?”

    I cheated. I actually know the subject matter, the precedents, the source material, and have read the earliest court interpretations. I know the case law. The Second Amendment does not exist in a vacuum and we are not commencing to scribble on a tabula rasa.

    “IN addition, what makes a militia unorganized?”

    The militia, which at the time and under current law consists of “every free able-bodied male citizen of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years”, the only modification being the original conception involved only whites, is the set “militia”.

    The subset “organized militia” consists of those who are “called forth”. The remainder is the “unorganized militia”.

    “Here on needs to realize that while Congresss provided for the organizing of the militias, the States had a hand in forming the militias in terms of appointing officers and the training of the Militia according what Congress determine. All of that is in Article 1.”

    Except, of course, that since the militia pre-existed the Constitution (see, for example, the Articles of Confederation), the existence of the militia is in no wise contingent on Article 1.

    “.In addition, Federalist Paper #29 gives an idea of the state of the Militia prior to being called forth.”

    The Federalist Papers are not legal documents. If you’re going to do exegesis, you only bring them to bear if they authoritatively define a term which we need to understand, which in this case they don’t.

    “And, as seen in the Virginia Declaration of RIghts,/i>, Virginia already possessed a Militia. Its beginning started in with the Revolutionary War.”

    That is incorrect. The Virginia Militia was used in the French and Indian War while Virginia was still under the Crown. George Washington was an officer in the Virginia Militia.

    “Not sure of why you referred to Article II.”

    “The President shall be Commander in Chief of … the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…. “.

    I was under the impression you wanted to do exegesis of the source documents, commencing with the Constitution. Is there a reason you wish to avoid noting that the militia of the several states can be called into “actual service”?

    Does it undercut your impression that there is no unorganized militia?

  • Bob,
    Conversation is over since you equate lashing with wearing your big boy pant. And no, not all the first rate scholars agree with everything ALito said.

    One thing I learned from seminary is that unless you can criticize someone, you don’t realily understand what they are saying. All you have done is to reference ALito, so you haven’t done anything more than to parrot him.

  • You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.

    You made a personal assessment of this correspondent, and then reacted poorly to one of your own approach, and now strike the pose ” equate lashing with wearing your big boy pant(s)”.

    It is a pose, nothing more. As Truman said if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

    I have not referenced Alioto once.

    You wanted exegesis your way – original text only – so I provided the grist for that mill. The first thing I get is “why Article II?” which deals with militia, and the second thing I get is the Federalist Paper #29, which is extraneous material is in the way of argument or explanation, thus violating the ground rules YOU set.

    You don’t get very many sustained discussions going, do you?

  • Bom,
    You cited the articles but they didn’t support your point. And lashing out, which I haven’t done, isn’t part of the heat in an adult conversation. Rather than appelaing to reason, it appeals to authority with the exxpectation that the other person submits without thinking.

    Labeling Federalist #29 as extremist forgets the author and his ideological ties to Madison who wrote the 2nd Amendment. Such labeling logically support your argument. . And you have not supplied any exegetical evidence supporting your claim that the 2nd Amendment refers to unofficial militias. Citing militia acts that followed The Constitution and do not shed light on what was orignially meant by well-regulated militia doesn’t help.

    Again, exgetical evidence is simply the original text and other texts that are contemporary in terms of when they were writing and provide a context for what the original text says. THat isn’t exegetical evidence my way, that is simply exegetical evidence. No problem with considering opinions or other texts that follow the original text. But they do not make up exegetial evidence.

    Before signing off here, what you may not be aware of is that you have done what you condemned Ben for doing. You disliked his ‘ammosexual’ label but lashed out with far more personal statements. And you try to use SC majority decisions and cite judges as conversation stoppers. So consider what you said at the beginning of your last comment. and see how it applies

  • If you don’t mind my saying so, Curt — and certainly not to directly disparage your views about the 2nd Amendment — why don’t we let one of the “good persons” around here answer your question about majority and minority opinions on the SCOTUS?

    “The dissents in that case were a joke. Appeals to tradition without the necessary explanation why it must be maintained and Scalia making threats of grave occurrences from the decision. Dissents are not law or even necessary elements of a decision. For the last time, you ignorant troll.”

    Signed, Spuddie

    That is how “good people” who “show respect for others” — and their friends — examine disagreeing reasoning on the SCOTUS, I think.

  • I didn’t cite ANY articles.

    Your “lashing out” leitmotif is self-serving nonsense.

    I did NOT label Federalist #29 as “extremist”.

    Here is what you proposed as “exegesis”:

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/religionnews/stop_mansplaining_guns/#comment-3793935918

    “Exegesis literally means reading out of the text. It’s contrasted with eisegesis, which means reading into the text. When I asked for exegetical evidence to prove your claim, I am asking for you to cite the portions of the relevant texts which support your claims. Then state why you think it means what you say it means.”

    which I did:

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/religionnews/stop_mansplaining_guns/#comment-3794042948

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/religionnews/stop_mansplaining_guns/#comment-3794067895

    In response I got Federalist #29 which is NOT:

    “…. literally …. reading out of the text. …. When I asked for exegetical evidence to prove your claim, I am asking for you to cite the portions of the relevant texts which support your claims. Then state why you think it means what you say it means.”

    but is “ ….eisegesis, which means reading into the text.”

    Obviously you have confused yourself. You asked for exegesis your way, and provided eisegesis your way.

    This is not our first rodeo trying to lasso your wandering mental processes, and the last one wound up just like this one.

  • Shawnie5,
    I have no problems with other answering my questions. But so far, I have not seen any answers by way of replying to what I wrote. So I don’t know why you are asking me the question

  • Shawnie,
    Thought I responded to you but I don’t see the comment. I am not doing anything that prevents others from entering the conversation. I have seen many of the othere responses so I am confused about the nature of your comment

  • Bob,
    Why not cite examples of what you think my lashing out is?

    No, you didn’t provide any exegetical evidence. For example, you claimed that the 2nd Amendment referred to unorganzied militias. You didn’t show anything in the text that confirmed that. Without even providing a good definition for what would be considered then an unorganized militia vs an organized one, the definitions included those militia affiliated with the state vs those that weren’t. ANother definition for well-regulated militias said that it well-regulated means that it was trained. But militias that were affiliated with the state,that is orgainized militias, were also well trained. And in quoting the militia act of 1792, note that all able bodied men were enrolled in their state militias. So how is it that the 2nd Amendment only spoke to unorganized militias?

    Regarding Federalist #29,, my apologies for misreading a word. But still, why call Federalist #29 extraneous material.? What would make Federalist Paper #29 extraneous when both Hamilton and Madison shared the Federalists position and were using the papers to promote The Constitution? Certainly, the Federalist #29 was written in a time period that would allow it provide exegetical evidence as to what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights meant when referring to militias. And both Hamilton and Madison argued along a similar lines in that reliance on the Militia provides a hedge against Federal Tyranny. With those factors involved, why call it extraneous?

    As for the exegetical evidence you claimed to provide, the first note seems to argue that there is no legitimate exegetical evidence. You wrote:


    Considering that most of the language in the Second Amendment involves terms of art that are grounded in usage that is arcane to us, I am not sure what your approach is going to provide other than confusion requiring reference to other materials in order to resolve that confusion.

    For example, the term “militia” predates the Constitution and the Second Amendment, and so how it was used and understood is necessary to understand why the terms even appear rather than simple 21st century business English.

    First, please list the arcane terms from the parts of The Constitution that
    qualify as arcane terms and when they qualified. Second, the term ‘miliitia’ did exist before the writing of The Constitution but its meaning was still current for that time as evidenced by the number of documents that used it. Again, the Virginia Declaration of Righs use the term ‘militia’ and, like The Constitution, used it in contrast to a standing Army as did Federalist #29 and #46. Federalist #29, written a year after The Constitution and at around the same time, if not before, the Bill of Rights is almost completely about the militia while James Madison wrote about the Militia in Federalist #46. Are you suggesting that the word ‘militia’ was an arcane term during the writing of The Constitution or Bill of Rights?

    You wrote that ‘context is everything’ and that is exactly why I asked you to provide exegetical evidence for your claims. Exegetical evidence not only includes The Constitution, it includes all texts written around that time that would explain the situation and how those words were used. But at the same time, you call Federalist #29 ‘extraneous.’ And,, BtW, I am not reducing all context to exegetical evidence.

    What was your second piece of exegetical evidence? You cited the following:

    The second part of the 2nd Amendment. How did cutting out the first part from the Amendment help us better understand the term ‘well-regulated militia’?

    What light did Amendment V provide in understanding the term?

    And how did the militia act of 1792 distinguish between an organized and unorganized militia? BTW note that you weren’t quoting from either militia act of 1792. For the first act, see https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/2nd_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_28. For the 2nd act, see https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/2nd_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_33..

    Now, tell me specifically what in those texts tells us that the 2nd Amendment refers to unorganized miltias only?

    Also compare the version of the Militia act of 1792 which you provided with the Heller deicision quote that follows:

    The version you provided:


    Every free able-bodied white male citizen of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years, shall be enrolled in the militia of the state of residence. Every enrolled member shall provide himself with arms and appear armed when called out to exercise or into service, which arms shall be exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes

    Now note part of the Heller decision:


    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts [***647] of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 626-62

    So what is it in what Ben wrote that makes you think that he was disagreeing with The Constitution?

  • This particular rambling post is so long I can’t even read the entire post.

    Federalist #29 was extraneous material because YOU wanted to do exegesis, not eisegesis. Federalist #29 is eisegesis.

    Now you’re involved in extensive eisegesis, the very thing you criticized me for.

    As for the exegetical evidence I claimed to provide, they were in

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/religionnews/stop_mansplaining_guns/#comment-3794042948

    and

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/religionnews/stop_mansplaining_guns/#comment-3794067895

    You’ve totally disregarded them and are now responding to a much earlier post.

    Unfortunately you can’t focus well enough to engage in this exchange.

  • Bob,
    THis is why our conversation is over. You are not going to address any specifics, you dismiss them.

    In addition, I simply asked you how the exegetical evidence you provided proved your point. And you backed off from explaining how the evidence you cited proved your point. Without showing how that evidence proved your point, you can’t really say you provided exegetical evidence that proved your point.

    Have a good life there.

  • 900 plus rambling words is not specifics.

    Asking for exegesis and then switching to eisegesis is not specifics.

    You and I have done this Kabuki dance before.

    This entire exchange taken as a whole proved my point.

  • Well, I guess I have to believe in resurrection, because the Great God Bobby Joe Arnzen just resurrected Joe bob the Parrot..

    And all it took to make you reappear among the living was a few other people coming to the same conclusion that I did… that you and Bob Arnhem are the same person,posting under multiple accounts, in order to give you some credibility.

ADVERTISEMENTs