Posted on 03/16/2005 12:51:41 PM PST by HereComesTheGOP
Why would they be wrong?
No, my position is that the act does not speak at all of minimums or maximums.
You can refuse to use common sense and the natural understanding of language all you want. But it's not a convincing argument.
SD
“Madison was a founder. The weapons are specifically recognized and enumerated. The letter recognizes the right of the private owner to carry these weapons.”
Now all you have to do is provide some link between Madison ALLOWING a citizen to own artillery for his ships with the second amendment, militias, or any right mentioned in the second.
You argue like this. Madison allowed cannon on specific ships, the second amendment speaks of arms, Madison must have been speaking of the second idea while allowing the first.
It does not work that way. You have not drawn a link. You have not produced a document in which Madison says …”you may use the cannons you have a right to own under the second amendment to wage war on Americas enemies under this letter of marque”.
You do not demonstrate such a link.
“Go away.”
Because you cannot argue a real case other than wishful thinking. I think not.
artillery = arms
you have asked for "a case" and I have given you THE TEXTBOOK.
It is now your task to provide a compelling argument in accord with that textbook which clearly allows the federal government to deny to the private citizen the right to keep and bear heavy weaponry.
addendum:
considering the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the "Establishment" clause, I really truly doubt you shall be able to do so.
“ok, jimbo, here is a primer on what the founders meant, relying as much as is possible on the Constitution itself, utilizing reading comprehension and simple logic: “
I love arguments that begin this way. They usually depend on an utter lack of the desired logic. Lets see..
”1. Article I, Section 8:11
(Congress shall have the power) To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water
reading comprehension: Congress can issue permits to private individuals and corporations to attack the military and private possessions of foreign powers.
simple logic: to do so would require that these privateers have requisite arms. There is no mention anywhere in the Constitution of the government providing said arms to the privateer. Ergo: the privateer must be expected to have those arms in his private possession. Clearly, the Constitution implicitly recognizes a private individual right to own and operate heavy cannon or their equivalent. “
Logic errors
1. Assumes that government granting a right is the same as government being prohibited from abridging a right
2. Equates the private ownership of cannon with a constitutional right to own cannon without establishing such a right exists
3. Equates a private individual petitioning government for permission to wage war with a private citizen being called to muster involuntarily as part of the militia
4. Equates the authority to muster with arms by the militia with the ability to provide armed vessels, a relationship not demonstrated in the argument.
Lets go on:
”2. 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.
Reading comprehension:
well-regulated = well trained, equipped and functioning in a proper manner
Militia = for a definition of Militia as meant at the time, I must depart from the Constitution for a moment: Title 10, Sec. 311(a) U. S. Code- "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age...."
being necessary to the security of a free State = A Free State is secure if it is able to defend itself against foreign invasion and the tyranny of its own government. This is indisputably the intent of the Founders, supported by their extraconstitutional writings.
the right = natural or God-given, pre-existing the State and independent of the State, as opposed to government granted privileges
of the people = of individuals, like all other iterations of "the people" in the Constitution - not a "group" of people, the States, nor even "the Militia" as a group.
to keep and bear = keep (to own or possess) and bear (to carry, transport, have at immediate disposal)
Arms = weapons, including but not limited to firearms. Derives from Latin, in which the root word means the weapons and armor of soldiers (including ballistae) as well as the gear on a ship. It has nothing to do with the arms hanging off your shoulders, as the Latin for that is "bracchium"
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED = shall not, EVER, be violated or encroached upon in any way, including nitpicky legalistic wrangling over small-arms vs. crew-served weapons vs. artillery.
Logic: The Founders wanted us loaded for bear, that we the people can be and remain a constant caution and terror to those we elect as our representatives. This is heavily supported by the extraconstitutional writings of the Founders. This purpose logically implies possession of artillery is constitutionally licit, as even then artillery was a requisite of serious battle. “
Logic errors:
1. defines arms in a way that is not supported by the writings of the founders or by court decisions
2. Imputes meaning in the phrase “shall not be infringed” that he has not demonstrated by cite or link.
3. Confuses opinion with fact throughout.
4. In the section labeled “logic” makes leaps not supported by evidence. The founders said what they meant and meant what they said. They did not speak of artillery in terms of the second yet did speak of small arms. You offer no proof for your leaps in logic.
”3. AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Reading comprehension: Just because it isn't listed here does not mean the people do not have that right.
Logic: That blows a very large hole in the entirety of the arguments you have thus far presented. “
Logic error
You argue that the right to artillery is protected in the second amendment yet seem to rely on the 9th as a right existing yet unspecified . If it is covered by the second, why do you bring up the 9th? If it is only coverd by the 9th, why pretend it is covered by the second?
”4. AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Reading Comprehension: If it is not specifically spelled out here, the government is not allowed to do it. PERIOD.
Logic: This blows a very large hole in your arguments, and in the legality of the 1938 FFA and all other federally-imposed limitations on civilian possession of military-grade arms.”
Logic errors:
1. See the note on the 9th.
2. I note a singular lack of legal cites in which this amendment has successfully protected any arm.
Simply too easy. If you want to make a constitutional case, you have to go from idea to idea using evidence to link the notions. You seem to leap about and make assumptions.
Again, just because something is legal or in common practice does not make it a protected right under the Constitution.
They do not recognize a "right" to own a muzzle loading cannon, they just do not raise objections. it is legal, not protected.
no, Jim: I take several points specifically spelled out by the Constitution and draw a line connecting them.
you, on the other hand, ignore the plain meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments. Indeed, you invert them.
"Alcohol is not protected by name in the constitution.
Then why did it require an amendment to allow Congress to regulate and prohibit it?
Your thesis just fell apart. Thanks for playing."
You are no longer arguing the second amendment. You are arguing property rights, not the same thing at all. It is an unrelated tangent. The right to own stuff is not the same as the right to own arms under the second.
Just because you want to wander afield does not mean that I do.
and, again: you are one of those who believe case law trumps the Constitution.
"artillery = arms"
More acccureately "artillery = arms = opinion"
I find an absolute lack of the word 'blunderbuss' too - so what? What is it that you don't understand about the phrase "every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American?"
"you have asked for "a case" and I have given you THE TEXTBOOK.
It is now your task to provide a compelling argument in accord with that textbook which clearly allows the federal government to deny to the private citizen the right to keep and bear heavy weaponry."
No you have incorrectly referenced a document and then made logic leaps not backed by the documents you wish to use as authority.
Again, I have no responsibility to prove private citizens cannot own artillery. They can, the ownership is restricted. There is a vast amount of federal regulation and case law that supports my view and zero as in none that supports yours.
If you doubt me, try buying a missile launcher on E-Bay. The feds will be amused with your defense.
no, Jim: more accurately, it is "artillery does not equal arms = your opinion" and "arms (in the 2nd) refers to small arms only = your opinion"
cough up your citations from the constitution to that effect. I will admit the ancillary writings of the founders as evidence, though not definitive.
Case law, otoh, is irrelevant.
Pay attention, Jim, this is important.
I am arguing that your entire mindset is faulty. I and others here have demonstrated it by numerous examples. My citing prohibition of alcohol is just one of these.
As long as you believe that the Constition grants rights to citizens and that the gov't can do whatever it likes unless there is a specific Constitutional prohibition against it, you will be wrong.
Maybe you like living under an all-powerful gov't, but we don't. We can recognize what the Constitution is intended for. I'm sorry you can't.
Now, if you would be so kind as to answer the question, we can continue. Why did it requre an amendment to allow Congress to prohibit alcohol? Under the theories you have put forth, there is no need for this. The people have no Constitutional right to alcohol and Congress has no Constitutional limit on its power to prohibit it.
So why all the fuss with amednments?
Please answer.
SD
and
I have no responsibility to prove private citizens cannot own artillery
taken together, you are now under such an obligation. Prove your case. Prove my understanding incorrect. Put up or shut up.
and case law is, once again, irrelevant when discussing the meaning of the Constitution. The Constitution predates the case law, and forms the base from which those case laws should be built and understood - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
Looks like a deal where students are not allowed to bring anything to school that they can defend themselves with, so it make them a target for off campus thugs.
"and, again: you are one of those who believe case law trumps the Constitution."
No I believe reality trumps wishful thinking. As no one thusfar has managed to link a right to artillery to the second in any way but by opinion, and I can produce too much case law to bore you with, I must assume my view is right and yours is wrong.
The constitution does not mean what you want it to. It means primarilly what the founders said it meant and secondarily what the courts have said. Your personal opinion ranks below both.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.