Yes, they are consistent. They are consistently WRONG. They are consistently contrary to the text and meaning of the Constitution and the bill of Rights.
Have you conceded that the second amendment does not apply to the states? Good.
YOU were the one who brought up the Ninth's incorrect position that the Second Amendment applies only as a "collective" right. And no, I do not concede, because I am still right, and you are still wrong.
The Second Amendment does not apply to the states. It applies to the people. All the people. Every individual person. It is a right of the people. It is not a right that can be revoked or changed by the states, or the federal government. That is what "shall not be infringed means", regardless of what some gun-grabbing totalitarian judge or sycophantic legal toady like you might think.
As to the RKBA being an individual right, only the 5th Circuit has ruled that way (once) in all of recorded history.
Because courts also get things right. In this case, the number of courts that have ruled correctly (such as this case) or the number that have ruled incorrectly (such as the Ninth) is irrelevant to the basic fact that the Second Amendment enumerates the inviolate individual's right to keep and bear arms.
But of course. I never said any differently.
But you have. You say the states have the power to revoke these rights. They don't.
Yes they do. But nowhere is it written that the government must protect these rights.
WTF? You really are an enabler of tyranny, aren't you. Protecting the rights of the people is the primary task of government. Otherwise you don't have government, you have tyrrany.
That citizens may bear arms as part of a militia only.
Firstly, do you understand the difference between dependent and independent clauses? The Second Amendment enumerates a right to keep and bear arms as a right of the people, not a right of the militia. It clearly says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", not "the right of the militia". If you somehow are correct (which you are not), then who decides who gets to be in the militia? The government? If the right to keep and bear arms can be applied only to particular people in this way, then it is not a right. It is a privilege. Rights, by definition, cannot be applied to a select group. They must be held by all or they are not rights.
Secondly, what is the militia? If you think it's the National Guard, or any other government sanctioned or organized body, then you are again absolutely wrong. The National Guard was created 112 years AFTER the Bill of Rights was written. Look at the Fifth Amendment. It clearly recognizes that the militia is separate from the armed forces. The militia is defined in United States Code, Title 10, Section 311, as "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age". Notice that it says NOTHING about being in any official military organization or anything about the militia being organized, sanctioned, or controlled by the states. Moreover, at the time the Constitution was written, the militia was clearly seen as nothing more than the people having taken up arms. Don't believe me?
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
--Richard Henry Lee (Father of the Tenth Amendment),
Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
I particularly like the line about minds being influenced by truly anti-republican principles. Sound familiar?
So here's the crux of the whole militia issue. You think people can only bear arms if they are in the militia. You have it exactly backwards. The people are in the militia specifically because they are bearing arms. And the Second Amendment enumerates and guarantees their right to do so.
The courts have interpreted the second amendment (which only applies to the federal government -- as we've agreed)
No. We have not agreed. You have just cutely tried to claim that I agree with your position, because you haven't got a valid argument to support it. We will only agree on this once you recognize that you are utterly wrong.
To the point of this sentence: only some courts have interpreted the Second Amendment this way. Those courts are wrong. And so are you.
to mean that the federal government is prevented from infringing on the right of the states to form a well regulated militia, the state militia being necessary to the security of a free State and all that.
Again wrong. You do not understand what a militia is. A "state militia" is not a militia. A militia, by definition, is not formed by the states. It is formed by the people (see above). Also, the Second Amendment does not say anything about state militias. And it specifically says, militia or no, that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the people.
> "The Constitution means what the Constitution says."
As interpreted by ... who? You? Are you to define an unreasonable search? A speedy trial? Excessive bail? Free speech?
Ah. Maybe "the people" are to interpret the U.S. Constitution. There you go. That's the ticket.
Do you think "the people" could compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 before they go back to watching Wheel of Fortune?
And here we finally see the root of all your arguments. Your inherent elitism have finally come out into the open. You clearly believe the people are so simple that they cannot understand what a simple expression like "shall not be infringed" means. They are just too simple minded to understand all the subtle nuance and hidden meaning that shows "shall not be infringed" means the exact opposite of what it does. Obviously, you think the people are so foolish and childlike that they need good, intelligent, better people like you to be their leaders, law interpreters, and masters.
Well, thank God they don't.
I've said it before, and it still holds: You are an enabler of tyrants. Such a pity there are so many fools and idiots out there who think as you do. You are nothing more than a symptom of how badly our great nation has fallen short of its potential and how completely we have betrayed the sacrifices of the Founding Fathers who created it.
I forgot to ping you in on my last response (#166) to the wanna-be peasant paulson. Enjoy (though I'm not sure why I bother debating the weasel - ever time I read one of his posts, I feel an urgent need for a bath).
Paulsen make his normal snide [and personal] attack:
"It's really not a difficult document to read and understand." Idiot.
As interpreted by ... who? You? Are you to define an unreasonable search? A speedy trial? Excessive bail? Free speech?
Ah. Maybe "the people" are to interpret the U.S. Constitution. There you go. That's the ticket.
Do you think "the people" could compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 before they go back to watching Wheel of Fortune?
Your answer bears repeating, as you "boldly" nail him..
Pillbox_girl:
And here we finally see the root of all your arguments. Your inherent elitism have finally come out into the open.
You clearly believe the people are so simple that they cannot understand what a simple expression like "shall not be infringed" means.
They are just too simple minded to understand all the subtle nuance and hidden meaning that shows "shall not be infringed" means the exact opposite of what it does.
Obviously, you think the people are so foolish and childlike that they need good, intelligent, better people like you to be their leaders, law interpreters, and masters.
Well, thank God they don't. I've said it before, and it still holds:
You are an enabler of tyrants. Such a pity there are so many fools and idiots out there who think as you do.
You are nothing more than a symptom of how badly our great nation has fallen short of its potential and how completely we have betrayed the sacrifices of the Founding Fathers who created it.
______________________________________
Again, -- well said. -- It's a pity, but your words will just fly completely over paulsens head. -- [I sometimes wonder if he enjoys the disdain of his peers]
-- Keep up your good work..
Yep. But not all rights. Even when a right IS protected, like speech, not all forms of speech are protected (eg., libel and slander).
The people decide which rights they will protect, and to what degree.
"Because courts also get things right."
Pretty selective, aren't you?
"It clearly says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", not "the right of the militia"."
Uh-huh. The right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia. According to the courts.
"If you somehow are correct (which you are not), then who decides who gets to be in the militia?"
That was up to each state, but the Militia Act of 1792 provided federal standards for the organization of the militia of each state.
"If the right to keep and bear arms can be applied only to particular people in this way, then it is not a right."
Of course it is. According to the courts, the second amendment protects from federal infringement the right of people to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia. That's the right that's protected. It's very specific.
"You say the states have the power to revoke these rights. They don't."
Revoke rights? Who said that?
I said that an individual's RKBA is protected by his state constitution, not the second amendment. If the state constitution is silent (as is California's and five others), then the state legislature is unrestricted when it comes to guns. In Illinois, the state constitution allows for the banning of handguns. And some cities in Illinois do just that -- Chicago, Wilmette, Morton Grove, and others.
"Secondly, what is the militia? If you think it's the National Guard ..."
It is not the National Guard, and I never claimed it was. The militia as described in the U.S. Constitution no longer exists. There is no militia today.
"Those courts are wrong."
Says who? You? And who are you?
"You do not understand what a militia is. A "state militia" is not a militia. A militia, by definition, is not formed by the states."
"And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct ..."
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
"You clearly believe the people are so simple that they cannot understand what a simple expression like "shall not be infringed" means."
I clearly believe that YOU don't know what it means. You've proved that already. Your ignorance is astounding.
You believe, and would have other people believe, that their gun rights are protected by the second amendment. "Not to worry, people", you'd say, "The second amendment will protect you".
What a fool. Sarah Brady loves people like you. If the people of California listened to you, they wouldn't be working on a state constitutional amendment to protect their RKBA. "Hey, why should we pass an amendment to the state constitution? pillbox_girl says the second amendment protects us already."
Life is so simple for simple people like you, isn't it? You say the constitution says A. The courts say B. Well, the courts are wrong.
La-di-da. Life goes on.
I hope you don't vote.