Second Amendment Misused By Gun Rights Advocates

[Abatis]

Gun rights advocates have long distorted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution to justify their version of guns rights.

That's amusing. If anyone is distorting things it is Mr Pollard and the rest of the rights deniers.

Gun rights supporters don't use the 2nd Amendment to justify their version of "guns rights" because the 2nd Amendment is not the source of the right to arms.

It is those who wish to deny the individual, unconditioned right who twist and distort the words of the Amendment to pervert the fundamental principles of the Constitution (conferred powers and retained rights) to invent conditions, qualifications and restrictions on the right.

I, as a gun rights supporter would prefer to just justify my version of gun rights on 140 years of Supreme Court holdings re-re-re-affirming that the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus it is not in any manner dependent upon the words of the Amendment to exist.

I don't claim my right to arms comes from what the 2nd Amendment says, I possess the right because of the absolute silence of the Constitution allowing government to have a say!

Yeah, that suits me just fine.

[Abatis]

Though Justice Antonin Scalia tried in the majority opinion to use the Second Amendment to defend gun rights

Your source must have never read a single Supreme Court case on the right to arms. Our original, fundamental rights have never been represented as anything but pre-existing rights that are not dependent on the Constitution to exist. So, he is either misrepresenting what the Supreme Court has said or he is just demonstrating profound ignorance. With his level of education and loopy-leftie allegiances, I vote for the former

the many sources that he cited are clear that the purpose of the amendment was to protect state militias. One source, for example, declares, that the purpose of the Second Amendment is "to secure a well-armed militia... ."

The object (intent) of the provision was to preserve the general militia concept (by securing the fundamental, individual, fully retained right to keep and bear arms). So, again, the provision doesn't give, grant, create or otherwise establish the right being secured so what exactly is he saying?

Another source Scalia cited indicates that the amendment covers only arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

That "source" was another Supreme Court decision on the right to arms / 2nd Amendment, US v Miller. It said that for an arm to "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" it needs to either be in common use at the time, and/or of the type making up the ordinary military equipment, and/or of the type that its possession and use could contribute to the common defense.

Therefore, Scalia acknowledges that the Second Amendment -- even in his pro-gun interpretation -- only protects arms that would be used in a militia, not the weapons of a formal army. He makes clear that "M-16 rifles and the like" have no Second Amendment protection and may be banned.

Well, I guess that settles it; he's all in for the misrepresentation!

There is thus no constitutional protection whatsoever for the semiautomatic rifle that killed the kids in Newtown. Even Scalia is explicit on that point.

Doubling down I see . . . So, how did we move ("explicitly" I might add, LOL) from full-auto M-16's to semi-auto sporters being unprotected? I guess we will never know unless you have some more of his drivel to cut and paste.

Actually, when one applies the protection criteria established in Miller and re-affirmed in Heller, those arms commonly called "assault weapons" meet ALL protection criteria thus the right to possess and use them must be preserved and ANY claim by government to restrict them must be repelled and invalidated.

That is exactly what will happen if any of this current foolishness gets to become law.

[Abatis]

You understand that Hamilton was a strident opponent of the Bill of Rights? Jesus look who I'm asking!! LOL

From yr link
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

Amazing!

Do you really think this undermines or defeats the -individual right exercisable and claimable without any militia connection- interpretation of what the 2nd Amendment secures?

[Abatis]

Taking the tool out of the equation is the easier path, but it honestly does not begin to solve the problem. Attempting to solve that problem might cause them to have to face some truths about the society they have legislated into existance. And it won't be a pretty picture.

The intellectually bankrupt left are eager to single out gun rights claiming rural whitey as the cultural force that needs to be stomped out so "gun violence" can be reduced but effectively ignore the inconvenient fact that the thug culture of 1/4 of 13.6% of the population (that's 3% of the total population) accounts for 40% of all gun murder victims.

OR that 60 percent of U.S. firearm homicides occur in the 62 cities of the country’s 50 largest metros . . . damn near every single one solidly under the ill-governance of liberals / progressives / Democrats.

[Abatis]

Why is actual debate shunned here?

[Hexexis]

...Scalia acknowledges that the Second Amendment -- even in his pro-gun interpretation -- only protects arms that would be used in a militia, ...

Then Scalia got it wrong: that 2d Amendment, as stated, protects the right of citizens to bear arms; not the arms themselves. Those rights were directed toward citizens of the new nation; not toward inanimate objects.

Moreover, there were militia back in 1787 & had been for more than a 100 yr. Nor were they state or commonwealth militia but local town & village militia; usually composed of males 16 to 60 that drilled once a month in accord w/ the monthly "court day," which for militia members was also "training day." Oh, & for those males to participate in militia & local politics, they had to be members in good standing of a church congregation. This went on for some time after the formation of a standing fed. army & navy.

This appears light years from what the debate's about today.

[Daan]

.

Connecticut's Governor, if I heard him correctly, just stated that if Feinstein's gun ban bill had been in effect on 12/14/2012, then all those children would still be alive.

Adam Lanza had handguns also. He was mentally deranged and determined to commit the atrocity that he did.

Feinstein's misguided proposal WILL NOT prevent another mass killing.

Well meaning people are focused on a certain type of gun. However, someone who is determined to perpetrate such an act will find the means to carry it out (bombs, hand guns, shot guns, ...)

.

[Contumacious]

Alexander Hamilton OPPOSED to Bill of Rights because he ---correctly - predicted that the scumbags was purposely misconstrue the amendments:


I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

[Daan]

.

Connecticut's Governor, if I heard him correctly, just stated that if Feinstein's gun ban bill had been in effect on 12/14/2012, then all those children would still be alive.

Adam Lanza had handguns also. He was mentally deranged and determined to commit the atrocity that he did.

Feinstein's misguided proposal WILL NOT prevent another mass killing.

Well meaning people are focused on a certain type of gun. However, someone who is determined to perpetrate such an act will find the means to carry it out (bombs, hand guns, shot guns, ...)

.

As the program continued, Feinstein paraded numerous people in front of the camera.

One young man told of his experience with the VA Tech shooting. He claimed that 50 people were killed (not true) and the gunman used multiple 30 round magazines (not true).

Feinstein is resorting to lies and exaggeration to promote her agenda. No surprise.

.

[Abatis]

[B]Alexander Hamilton OPPOSED to Bill of Rights because he ---correctly - predicted that the scumbags was purposely misconstrue the amendments:

Doesn't matter what color or how big you make it they will never understand.

Don't you know that ThinkProgress and dailyKos and HuffPo said that Scalia rewrote everything and invented the individual right???!!!!!!!

It doesn't matter that SCOTUS said 130+ years ago that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" , , , and Heller merely re-affirmed that.

No, it doesn't matter because the left will still read words, upon which the right in no manner depends, and twist them, just like the Federalists warned, to misconstruct powers to condition, qualify, constrain and restrict the right.

And then we are forced to hear them claim to be the smart and enlightened ones LOL.

[Abatis]

Feinstein is resorting to lies and exaggeration to promote her agenda.

Here is today's edition of Feinstein Lies:

"The more you have these weapons, these military style weapons, that with a single slide stock on the AR-15 can be made fully automatic, the minute you have that, in like the Sandy Hook killer's hands, you have a devastating weapon."

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Sunday, January 27, 2013 on CNN's "State of the Union with Candy Crowley" @ 6:20 mark (until it is scrubbed)

[Contumacious]

Doesn't matter what color or how big you make it they will never understand.

Don't you know that ThinkProgress and dailyKos and HuffPo said that Scalia rewrote everything and invented the individual right???!!!!!!!

It doesn't matter that SCOTUS said 130+ years ago that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" , , , and Heller merely re-affirmed that.

No, it doesn't matter because the left will still read words, upon which the right in no manner depends, and twist them, just like the Federalists warned, to misconstruct powers to condition, qualify, constrain and restrict the right.

And then we are forced to hear them claim to be the smart and enlightened ones LOL.

That is very true.

There are two routes freemen can use to assert their rights either peacefully or through violence.

I shall continue to use my Dell until they pry it from my dead cold fingers.

.

[Abatis]

Then Scalia got it wrong: that 2d Amendment, as stated, protects the right of citizens to bear arms; not the arms themselves. Those rights were directed toward citizens of the new nation; not toward inanimate objects.

The inanimate objects are what is protected under the criteria used by the Supreme Court.

2nd Amendment protection, in its current form (post 1939) is all about the type of arm.

To be protected the arm must be:

• of a type in common use at the time (of the Court's examination) and/or
• a type of arm that is part of the ordinary military equipment and/or
• a type of arm that could be advantageously used in the common defense of the citizen.

Actual protected uses are more-or-less in limbo as the "fundamental" status of the right was finally cemented in 2008 in Heller. It is being fleshed out in lower courts applying Heller deciding the question of the standard of scrutiny. Self defense is shaking out to being a strict scrutiny interest and subsidiary uses like hunting is shaking out as an intermediate scrutiny interest.