As soon as you tell me what I meant by the “very thing” that you failed to mention when you took my words out of context.
Or better yet, just don’t. You’re as bad as Liebart was.
Concession accepted.
This is all I can afford.
I’m not greedy, friend.
Since we never got around to discussing the historical role of the Fed in regulating the “well regulated militia,” I think everyone should read this article. I do think the author is rather starry-eyed about taking SCOTUS back in time, but he’s right about the history…for which we mostly have the NRA to thank.
HERE IS SOME COMMON SENSE FOR US.
And I particularly think these two embedded links are refreshing reading, from a time when the Court believed it knew damn well what a militia was.
1 Like
Couldn’t agree more:
Gun control ends gun violence as surely an antibiotics end bacterial infections, as surely as vaccines end childhood measles—not perfectly and in every case, but overwhelmingly and everywhere that it’s been taken seriously and tried at length. These lives can be saved. Kids continue to die en masse because one political party won’t allow that to change, and the party won’t allow it to change because of the irrational and often paranoid fixations that make the massacre of students and children an acceptable cost of fetishizing guns.
And yup:
the only amendment necessary for gun legislation, on the local or national level, is the Second Amendment itself, properly understood, as it was for two hundred years in its plain original sense. This sense can be summed up in a sentence: if the Founders hadn’t wanted guns to be regulated, and thoroughly, they would not have put the phrase “well regulated” in the amendment. (A quick thought experiment: What if those words were not in the preamble to the amendment and a gun-sanity group wanted to insert them? Would the National Rifle Association be for or against this change? It’s obvious, isn’t it?)
One can only laugh.
The 2nd Amendment was so well understood to mean the Federal government could regulate arms that Stevens first mention of any such regulation occurs in 1934… 146 years after the ratification which created the United States of America.
Again, I must commend those who are so anxious to press a theoretical point that makes absolutely no sense in practice.
Stevens acknowledges that the militia clause is a preamble, then proceeds to read meaning into the words as though they carry some implied meaning. He was so busy trying to emphasize that words have meaning, that he missed the fact that preamble has a meaning, which is “introduction.” He offers nothing but a mere passing reference to Marbury v Madison to support his interpretation.
The preamble to the Constitution has no power of law. It is understood to be a succinct introduction of the document. Why does a preamble elsewhere suddenly inform what powers the Federal government has? Beyond simply, “because I want a preamble to mean something here, but something different here”, there is nothing supporting the view.
Stevens goes on to hand wave about the Amendment not being about self defense, which leads us to the self evident coup de grace against his argument -
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.
- Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
Nowhere in the Constitution is Federal government delegated the power to regulate arms. Period. End of fucking list.
It was understood that the Federal government did not regulate the people’s arms. That was left to the states because, you know, federalism was an integral part of the Constitution. You would have to ignore the other words of the Constitution to swallow Stevens’ argument. You would have to ignore the people just fighting a war against what was seen as tyrannical central government, yet believe these same people would then willingly cede their arms to a the authority of a central government.
How does anyone try to make that argument with a straight face?
One can only laugh.
One can only hope that by the time the armchair chuckler finally finds his OWN seat on the Federal bench, he will have gained the ability to write an opinion that people will still find interesting to read (after the passage of years) without either rolling on the floor pissing themselves, or else wiping their asses on it.
I’ll take this snark more seriously when you show that Stevens was unaware of any previous regulation or might have found it necessary to mention it.
Tell it to Scalia, asshat.
That’s the problem with citing Supreme Court justices, just because you agree with one more doesn’t mean they are correct in their opinion.
That’s why I think for myself.
Why do I need to do that, when you already did it with your link, which you thought “shut me up?”
Keep up, old boy.
Why would I think a link would shut you up, when I have no idea what you might pretend to think about it?
Further, what is it you believe I did with that link that would excuse you from my challenge…i.e., to show that Stevens was unaware of any previous regulation?
There isn’t anything to reference. I already did the footwork on this years ago. That’s how I knew what your search for federal gun legislation would turn up, when I made the challenge.
You keep underestimating not only my wit, but also the depth of my own background in this issue. The only “research” I need do is just to check on the spellings of people’s names.
Your reply is without substance, does not even begin to address anything in the post you responded to, and is therefore rejected.
In the unlikely case that your answer means to claim that there was no prior federal regulation for Stevens to refer to, prior to Miller, that claim is also rejected. You can start with the Second Militia Act of 1792.
Thanks for playing, though. 
1 Like
I fail to see how the Second Militia Act of 1792 regulates the individual citizen’s right to own a gun if there is no militia.
What’s that? Oh the goal posts are skittering off into the background.
What kind of fucking idiot tries prove that the federal government can prohibit you from owning an arm by pointing to legislation that does no such thing?
Your claim was the people’s right to bear arms in the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right and that there is a militia requirement.
Again, how did you come to the conclusion that the Militia Acts did that? They were not done because the federal government decided it wanted to regulate arms. They were a response to the defeat at The Battle of Wabsash. The move was done so the US would be ready for any imminent invasion. We were not at the point where the injuns were subjugated. Fucking duh.
So you think the federal government responding to an actual existential threat means they were actually out to limit the individual right of gun ownership? Yeah, that tracks in Progland, but not in reality.
Thanks for playing indeed. You’re fucking idiot for posting that weak bullshit.
…and he goes ad hominem!
Hey, dipshit, ad hominem is when you attack someone as a means of refuting their argument. I didn’t do that.
I refuted the argument, then pointed out you would have to be a fucking idiot to use something that unrelated to the point as a rebuttal.
Did so.
Can’t you read? The Act confers an unfunded mandate upon every militia-eligible male to buy a fucking musket. How is that NOT “regulation?”
Link please, you lying sack of dog shit.
There you go again, putting thoughts into MY head. Ever hear of the straw man fallacy?
Of course you have. You’re the piss poorest debater ever.
Way to equivocate, jack ass. Let’s review what I said -
Context really is not your sweet spot is it? At least Stevens had the good sense not to go there.
Here, let me remind you of your rebuttal, friend.
A second ago it was common sense, now you didn’t even mention it.
Don’t worry, you’re not the first poaster that has gone against me who cannot even remember what he was arguing in the very thread we are arguing in. LMAO@U
Oh look, everyone. Crackdawg is taking me for one of those “walkabout” thingies. Or “runaround” thingies, whatever they’re called.
I think I've wasted enough time on this topic. I might be done here.
[quote="thebigdog, post:22, topic:10720"]
**Again for a bunch of people who bitch about semantics and parsing, you would think you guys could actually site where the Federal government engaged in gun control,** rather than relying on this tired argument of making a sufficient reason a necessary one.
[/quote]