6 ms·

Except guns are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and were pretty important in breaking away from tyranny and forming a new country. Cars, not so much

Except guns are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and were pretty important in breaking away from tyranny and forming a new country. Cars, not so much.

jonathankoren 11y ago
I'd like to see you win armed insurrection today without cars. Also, The 2nd Amendment refers to a state government sponsored and maintained military force. The idea there is an individual right, is a novel invention in the last 30 years. In fact, it was never recognized until all-to-predictable 5-4 decision in 2010[1]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06... edit: spelling
- cgriswald 11y ago
  No, it is the idea that it is not an individual right that is new and novel. The individual right to possess weapons for self-defense predates the United States.
- Pyxl101 11y ago
  > The idea there is an individual right, is a novel invention in the last 30 years. In fact, it was never recognized until all-to-predictable 5-4 decision in 2010[1]. You are wrong about this. Please read District of Columbia v. Heller in full (2008). It reviews the history, with ample explanation of the meaning, phrasing, and expectations elucidated through founding-era sources. Please see section D, which has an extensive discussion of how this right was discussed in the 19th century. Upon reviewing the evidence, the court concludes: > It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense. There is significant evidence in the way of commentary, court opinions, legislation, etc. justifying that the right was understood as an individual right throughout this time: > In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right: > “The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law which contravenes this right, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void [...]” > Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States [...].” Lastly, you misconstrue the nature of the 5-4 decision. Two years earlier, in 2008, the same justices as who you are referring to also dissented in Columbia v. Heller, and wrote: > #1. Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting. The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. > #2. Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting. I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. [...] I shall, as I said, assume with the majority that the Amendment, in addition to furthering a militia-related purpose, also furthers an interest in possessing guns for purposes of self-defense, at least to some degree. Even the dissenting votes agree that the right to bear arms individually for self-defense is a right protected by the Second Amendment, at least to some degree. Their dissenting votes are based on a disagreement about the scope of that protection, and how it interacts with competing interests in those cases. The dissent involves questions like whether the Second Amendment is incorporated by the due process clause.
MaysonL 11y ago
And keeping slaves from rebelling, the main purpose of the second amendment.
- wyclif 11y ago
  That's actually not the main purpose of the Second Amendment at all.
  - MaysonL 11y ago
    Arguably, it was. See: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendmen... http://news.wabe.org/post/right-bear-arms-against-slave-revolts http://news.wabe.org/post/right-bear-arms-against-slave-revo...
    - wyclif 11y ago
      "Arguably"? Nope. Read District of Columbia v. Heller. It's all there. It's really not arguable.
      - MaysonL 11y ago
        Arguably, Heller was decided wrongly, and will be overturned by a future Court. 5-4 decisions often suck.
        Pyxl101 11y ago
        > Arguably, Heller was decided wrongly Let's keep in mind the text of the Constitution: > [T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms[] shall not be infringed. The foundation of this discussion is simple: that right shall not be infringed. Courts through US history have respected its value and significance: > In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right: > “The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law which contravenes this right, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void [...]” Any law which contravenes this right is repugnant to the Constitution and void. That's a pretty strong statement to make, and it has been reinforced on many occasions. > In State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States [...].” So, why do you believe it was decided wrongly? It seems clear to me that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the individual right to bear arms, not just for military service but for self-defense. The right was seen as necessary for a free society, both in the sense of the strength to resist invasions as well as to resist tyranny of one's own government. There was dissent in the Heller case, but not about whether the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right. Both of the dissenting votes recognized that it does.

Except guns are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and were pretty important in breaking away from tyranny and forming a new country. Cars, not so much.

jonathankoren 11y ago

I'd like to see you win armed insurrection today without cars. Also, The 2nd Amendment refers to a state government sponsored and maintained military force. The idea there is an individual right, is a novel invention in the last 30 years. In fact, it was never recognized until all-to-predictable 5-4 decision in 2010[1]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06... edit: spelling

cgriswald 11y ago
No, it is the idea that it is not an individual right that is new and novel. The individual right to possess weapons for self-defense predates the United States.
Pyxl101 11y ago
> The idea there is an individual right, is a novel invention in the last 30 years. In fact, it was never recognized until all-to-predictable 5-4 decision in 2010[1]. You are wrong about this. Please read District of Columbia v. Heller in full (2008). It reviews the history, with ample explanation of the meaning, phrasing, and expectations elucidated through founding-era sources. Please see section D, which has an extensive discussion of how this right was discussed in the 19th century. Upon reviewing the evidence, the court concludes: > It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense. There is significant evidence in the way of commentary, court opinions, legislation, etc. justifying that the right was understood as an individual right throughout this time: > In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right: > “The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law which contravenes this right, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void [...]” > Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States [...].” Lastly, you misconstrue the nature of the 5-4 decision. Two years earlier, in 2008, the same justices as who you are referring to also dissented in Columbia v. Heller, and wrote: > #1. Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting. The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. > #2. Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting. I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. [...] I shall, as I said, assume with the majority that the Amendment, in addition to furthering a militia-related purpose, also furthers an interest in possessing guns for purposes of self-defense, at least to some degree. Even the dissenting votes agree that the right to bear arms individually for self-defense is a right protected by the Second Amendment, at least to some degree. Their dissenting votes are based on a disagreement about the scope of that protection, and how it interacts with competing interests in those cases. The dissent involves questions like whether the Second Amendment is incorporated by the due process clause.

MaysonL 11y ago

And keeping slaves from rebelling, the main purpose of the second amendment.

wyclif 11y ago
That's actually not the main purpose of the Second Amendment at all.
- MaysonL 11y ago
  Arguably, it was. See: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendmen... http://news.wabe.org/post/right-bear-arms-against-slave-revolts http://news.wabe.org/post/right-bear-arms-against-slave-revo...
  - wyclif 11y ago
    "Arguably"? Nope. Read District of Columbia v. Heller. It's all there. It's really not arguable.
    - MaysonL 11y ago
      Arguably, Heller was decided wrongly, and will be overturned by a future Court. 5-4 decisions often suck.
      - Pyxl101 11y ago
        > Arguably, Heller was decided wrongly Let's keep in mind the text of the Constitution: > [T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms[] shall not be infringed. The foundation of this discussion is simple: that right shall not be infringed. Courts through US history have respected its value and significance: > In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right: > “The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law which contravenes this right, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void [...]” Any law which contravenes this right is repugnant to the Constitution and void. That's a pretty strong statement to make, and it has been reinforced on many occasions. > In State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States [...].” So, why do you believe it was decided wrongly? It seems clear to me that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the individual right to bear arms, not just for military service but for self-defense. The right was seen as necessary for a free society, both in the sense of the strength to resist invasions as well as to resist tyranny of one's own government. There was dissent in the Heller case, but not about whether the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right. Both of the dissenting votes recognized that it does.