22-10-2004 08:30									#241
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Yeah right guys. Nice spin.

But if there was absolutley no relation of militias to guns, it would have never been mentioned in the first place. Duh.

Explanatory, MEANING, "hey, I'm telling you guys the reason we have this clause is so we can form militias."

Do you SEE any militas around? (The wackos at the Michigan Milita don't count either).

	22-10-2004 08:43									#242
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Nice spin.

No, no spin. Basic English declares that the independant clause is the controlling one in the sentance. That is the one that says everyone has the right to bear arms.

quote: Explanatory, MEANING, "hey, I'm telling you guys the reason we have this clause is so we can form militias."

One meaning. It'd be like the 1st Amendment saying "The right to a political dissent being necessary to a free state, the right of free speech shall not be abridged". I don't think ANYONE would say that the clause meant that free speech was ONLY for political dissent. It's one explination... not the only one.

quote: Do you SEE any militas around?

The National Guard are the militia. If we accept your argument then the federal government exercising ANY control over them is unconstitutional.

And reading it as allowing the states to have militias is TOTALLY inconsistent with Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, which says:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops..."

What is the point of allowing guns for a militia to protect the states from the federal government if they can't keep troops without Congress saying it is ok?

	22-10-2004 08:50									#243
	Remove this text

So basically you want to pick out one section of the Constitution as being able to be violated with no problem but not the other.

Again, your interpretation.

Let's flip the script, the clause doesn't specifically mention ANY of the other purposes that firearms are used, including:

1) Personal protection
2) Hunting
3) Sports

Yet militias are exclusively mentioned. It's not just a coincidence.

And the National Guard don't keep their weapons at home. They are kept at the guard armory.

	22-10-2004 09:08									#244
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

They should have included dueling as a clause in the constitution. That would have been great.

	22-10-2004 09:16									#245
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Yet militias are exclusively mentioned. It's not just a coincidence.

Um... you wouldn't list everything. It's just the most important reason they saw for it.

quote: And the National Guard don't keep their weapons at home. They are kept at the guard armory.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

In other amendments, 'the people' stands for individuals and not just the society (such as in the 1st Amendment). I'd think not allowing guns at home would be quite an infringement .

Now who is talking about violating clauses of the Constitution?


And everyone at the time owned a personal gun. The 'explanitory gloss' of the militia was included, IMO, to justify the need for such an amendment. Most people would probably wonder about it because everyone had a gun and the government taking it away was inconcievable. Though the government banning people from having guns to destroy militias was something that was somewhat plausible.

	22-10-2004 09:20									#246
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Yet militias are exclusively mentioned. It's not just a coincidence. Um... you wouldn't list everything. It's just the most important reason they saw for it.

How do you know? Did you personally interview them?

And secondly, those reasons that I listed are the most common uses for keeping firearms.

quote: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Yet there are limits on what kinds of "arms" someone can buy?

According to your interpretation, the Assault Rifle bill should have been unconstitutional, because it "infringed" on peoples' "right."

Now why is that ? Why can't I get a .50 cal machine gun and mount it towards the door of my apartment? After all, that's my "right." Right?

No, it's not, because of the way the Amendment is INTERPRETED.

	22-10-2004 09:25									#247
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: According to your interpretation, the Assault Rifle bill should have been unconstitutional, because it "infringed" on peoples' "right."

Not necessarily, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say that people have a right to every type of arms. Floyd may disagree, but it just allows the people to have access to arms, in the general. The catagory of arms is not set.

And the Assault Rifle Ban should be struck because of its vagueness. Any rifle that LOOKS like a military weapon is banned? WHAT? What a crap law!

quote: because of the way the Amendment is INTERPRETED.

And some circuiits (like the 5th Circuit) interpret the 2nd Amendment as giving a right to bear arms to each individual.

	22-10-2004 09:28									#248
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Not necessarily, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say that people have a right to every type of arms. Floyd may disagree, but it just allows the people to have access to arms, in the general. The catagory of arms is not set.

You just said that this Amendment was okay to be vague.

quote: And the Assault Rifle Ban should be struck because of its vagueness. Any rifle that LOOKS like a military weapon is banned? WHAT? What a crap law!

Yet here you are dogging the Assault Rifle ban because it is too vague???

	22-10-2004 09:30									#249
	Increase Your PM Length

Apparently your interpretation weighs more than you think.

	22-10-2004 09:30									#250
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Yet here you are dogging the Assault Rifle ban because it is too vague???

Do you have absolutely no idea about the differences between Constitutional clauses and regular laws?



Constitutional clauses are allowed to be vague. Statutes who's vagueness may go against a clause of the Constitution must be struck down, because of the Supremecy Clause.

Do you need a civics lesson?

	22-10-2004 09:31									#251
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Yet here you are dogging the Assault Rifle ban because it is too vague??? Do you have absolutely no idea about the differences between Constitutional clauses and regular laws? Constitutional clauses are allowed to be vague. Statutes who's vagueness may go against a clause of the Constitution must be struck down, because of the Supremecy Clause. Do you need a civics lesson?

Who says Consitutional laws are allowed to be vague but regular laws are not?

Is there an explicit vague clause in the Consitution?

	22-10-2004 09:33									#252
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

And yet you are claiming rights to gun ownership because of something SPECIFIC mentioned in the Second Amendment???

	22-10-2004 09:46									#253
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Who says Consitutional laws are allowed to be vague but regular laws are not?

The Supremacy Clause. If a law is vague enough to potentially conflict with a Constitutional clause, it's gone.

	22-10-2004 09:50									#254
	Suffering from ads?

So why wasn't the Assault weapons ban gone then?

	22-10-2004 09:53									#255
	Full PM-box? Change here!

AFAIK, there has been no cases on it. And, secondly, because the SCOTUS hasn't decided between different Circuits' interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Just because a law may be unconstitutional (DOMA, PATRIOT Act) doesn't mean it's ruled on by the Courts. There are standing requirements to be met and then it actually has to go through the courts.

	22-10-2004 09:57									#256
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

SCROTUM

	22-10-2004 09:57									#257
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui AFAIK, there has been no cases on it. And, secondly, because the SCOTUS hasn't decided between different Circuits' interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Just because a law may be unconstitutional (DOMA, PATRIOT Act) doesn't mean it's ruled on by the Courts. There are standing requirements to be met and then it actually has to go through the courts.

So you ADMIT that there are laws out there that clearly violate the Consitution? And that these are allowed to be in violation because of the way they have been interpreted.

	22-10-2004 10:02									#258
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Laws where people don't have standing to sue or haven't been able to yet have standing are out there, even though they may violate the Constitution, to me... unless the SCOTUS rules on them they are considered fine (even if they are definetly going to be struck down).

They are allowed to be in violation (IMO), because they haven't been ruled on yet... not because of the way they've been interpreted.

	22-10-2004 10:03									#259
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

SCROTUM

	22-10-2004 10:04									#260
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Ted Striker

	22-10-2004 10:04									#261
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui AFAIK, there has been no cases on it. And, secondly, because the SCOTUS hasn't decided between different Circuits' interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Just because a law may be unconstitutional (DOMA, PATRIOT Act) doesn't mean it's ruled on by the Courts. There are standing requirements to be met and then it actually has to go through the courts.

You have said that the patriot act is unconstitutional because even though it does not infringe on any portion of the constitution it will sometimes reduce the privacy of some people and SCOTUS is on the record as having written invisible privacy protection into the constitution.

But what about this DOMA what is it and what part of the constituion does it conflict with? Does it also only conflict with court legislated invisible unwritten parts of the constituion?

	22-10-2004 10:06									#262
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Laws where people don't have standing to sue or haven't been able to yet have standing are out there, even though they may violate the Constitution, to me... unless the SCOTUS rules on them they are considered fine (even if they are definetly going to be struck down). They are allowed to be in violation (IMO), because they haven't been ruled on yet... not because of the way they've been interpreted.

Yet many courts have interpetated municipal gun bans as being clearly acceptable.

Surely the higher courts in this case would overrule all such measures?

Why don't my Consitutional rights let me take an AK-47 on an airplane?

I want to form an airplane militia in case Osama Bin Laden shows up so we can cap his ass.

Clearly, there is alot of interpretation going on around here. If the Second Amendment really did stricly apply the way you said it did, none of these gun bans would be in effect.

	22-10-2004 10:08									#263
	Remove this text

DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) may infringe on equal protection (ie, pretext for homosexual discrimination). But the main provision that will strike it down is the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Oh, and the 'court legislated invisible written parts' is known as Substantive Due Process .

	22-10-2004 10:08									#264
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo But what about this DOMA what is it and what part of the constituion does it conflict with?

Full faith and credit.

	22-10-2004 10:12									#265
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Yet many courts have interpetated municipal gun bans as being clearly acceptable. Surely the higher courts in this case would overrule all such measures? Why don't my Consitutional rights let me take an AK-47 on an airplane? I want to form an airplane militia in case Osama Bin Laden shows up so we can cap his ass. Clearly, there is alot of interpretation going on around here. If the Second Amendment really did stricly apply the way you said it did, none of these gun bans would be in effect.

I think it is ok for the private airlines to bar you from carrying such weapons aboard their planes but the federal government would be constitutionally constrained from legislating such a ban.

We really need to repeal the 2nd ammendment rather than just waiting for SCOTUS to re-write it into a more convenient meaning.

	22-10-2004 10:13									#266
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Clearly, there is alot of interpretation going on around here. If the Second Amendment really did stricly apply the way you said it did, none of these gun bans would be in effect..

Where did I saw it applied strictly? I said that there can be some limits, because 'arms' is not defined, but the amendment says that private individuals have to have the right to own arms.. so you can't ban all arms. It seems, at the very least, hunting rifles or handguns would have to be allowed. An 'assault weapons' ban could even be read, in the broadest view, to ban those.

quote: Yet many courts have interpetated municipal gun bans as being clearly acceptable.

The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated, which means, as of yet, it does not apply to the states.... just federal government. Which, btw, I think is incorrect .

	22-10-2004 10:13									#267
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo I think it is ok for the private airlines to bar you from carrying such weapons aboard their planes but the federal government would be constitutionally constrained from legislating such a ban. We really need to repeal the 2nd ammendment rather than just waiting for SCOTUS to re-write it into a more convenient meaning.

	22-10-2004 10:15									#268
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) may infringe on equal protection (ie, pretext for homosexual discrimination). But the main provision that will strike it down is the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Oh, and the 'court legislated invisible written parts' is known as Substantive Due Process .

Fear of gay marriage seems like a really pathetic excuse for stirring up a constitutional crisis. Is that the only real 'issue' this legislation is meant to address?

	22-10-2004 10:18									#269
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo Fear of gay marriage seems like a really pathetic excuse for stirring up a constitutional crisis. Is that the only real 'issue' this legislation is meant to address?

Yep. It basically says that if one state accepts gay marriage, no other state has to accept that marriage if they don't want to, say, if that couple moves into the protesting state. It is called the 'Defense of Marriage Act'. It's an anti-gay-marriage law.

	22-10-2004 10:24									#270
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I said that there can be some limits, because 'arms' is not defined, but the amendment says that private individuals have to have the right to own arms.. so you can't ban all arms. It seems, at the very least, hunting rifles or handguns would have to be allowed. An 'assault weapons' ban could even be read, in the broadest view, to ban those.

"Would", and "could", are speculation, meaning they are interpretative opinions.

Which goes to my original point, which is that the Second Amendment means different things according to who is reading and interpreting it.

My interpretation say syou should only be allowed to have guns if you are forming a militia, because it was the ONLY explicit purpose ever mentioned in the Second Amendment, which was formed back in the day when there was no real standing army, and colonists were often left to defend themselves.

You, have a different interpretation, sometimes vagueness is okay, sometimes it's not.

If it really was the law of the land all gun bans would never have happened.

But I'm sure lower court judges and city legislatures never took a civic lesson and would not form such foolish laws.

James Brady, who took a bullet to save teh Reagan, surely appreciates such laws.