” When a judge, instead of relying on the plain meaning of a constitutional amendment…”

P.T. , are you really claiming to have a better grasp of the 2nd Amendment’s ‘plain meaning’  than those who wrote and signed it in 1791? 

I shouldn’t have to explain that the plain meanings of many words change over time as language evolves through cultural influence. The word ‘arms’ in reference to weapons could fall completely out of common use in another 200 years and some future person like yourself might claim the 2nd Amendment only protected the right of the people to keep their upper appendages on their torsos, because what else could ‘arms’ refer to?  And if some future judge looked back in history and discovered it originally meant weapons, some might call him an activist who was ‘cherry picking’  word meanings.  Clearly, the “plain meaning” in 1791 is no longer plain for some after 200+ years,  as evidenced by people as yourself who interpret it differently from those who wrote it and signed it.

Chile in 1973 is a case in point.  The Chilean military bombed Chile.  Those are the kinds of things ruling classes and those who work on their behalf do.

“In other words, they put their own judgement above the law, essentially legislating by judicial decree, which is a violation of the democratic process.”

Exactly.  When a judge, instead of relying on the plain meaning of a constitutional amendment, cherry picks one or more amendment supporters who put their self-serving spin on the amendment, the judge is engaged in judicial activism.  If you don’t like a law, elect people who will change the law democratically, instead of running to the courts.

“You’re obviously a judicial activist.”

You obviously don’t understand the term, as I am quite the opposite.  Judicial activist means a judge who flaunts the original intent and purpose of the law based on perceived negative consequences of the law or their own personal preferences. In other words, they put their own judgement above the law, essentially legislating by judicial decree, which is a violation of the democratic process.  As the Constitution is the ultimate law in this nation, it must be the ultimate consideration for the judge.  Overturning a lesser law which obviously violates the Constitution is not judicial activism. Overturning laws for any other reason (social, political, personal)  is judicial activism.

I insist on considering the original intent and purpose of the law, in this case the Second Amendment of the Constitution, by looking at the supporting documentation and quotes about the law from the authors and signatories.

If Americans in DC or elsewhere want gun control laws that are in conflict with the Second Amendment, let them change the Constitution. If they can get the votes needed for a Constitutional Amendment, then the change is democratically valid, along with any news laws that the altered Constitution allows for.  In contrast, when gun control advocates flaunt the Constitution and it’s purpose by passing laws that ignore it, for the perceived ” public good”, their laws are not constitutionally valid and should be overturned by the courts.  The handgun ban in DC is a perfect example. In my opinion, the law is unconstitutional as it violates the intent of the law, ie the intent of the authors and signatories of the Constitution, some of whom specifically mention pistols in their supporting arguments for Second Amendment protections. If the Supreme Court finds that the law is in conflict with the Second Amendment, then they should rule based on that, not on perceived social implications.

“In modern times, those who seek to enslave the people en masse want to take away their right to keep and bear arms. If you want to avoid slavery, arm yourselves!”

That sums up the hypocrisy of the pro-gun position.  What are you going to do with a gun against a regime that has jet bombers, tanks, and WMDs?  If you really want to fight against such a regime, you should support individuals’ rights to own WMDs, missile launchers, etc.

Several posters have pointed out that gun ownership was denied to slaves.

This is true. Does anyone see the point?

If you want to enslave people, take away their right to keep and bear arms. That is, take away their right to defend themselves.

Of course, the Founders who owned slaves were hypocritical in denying the right to keep and bear arms to their slaves. Had the slaves been armed, they would not have remained slaves for long.

In modern times, those who seek to enslave the people en masse want to take away their right to keep and bear arms. If you want to avoid slavery, arm yourselves!

“It is foolish to approach the issue as if the Constitution comes out of a historical vacuum, as if we dug it up somewhere with no supporting information to put it in context.”

You’re obviously a judicial activist.  Repeating rifles would be out as they did not exist at the time.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

George Mason was a lying, double-talking fraud.  His slaves could not own guns.

P.T., and what does that mean? Ask the guy who wrote it.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

FYI, the Constitution was written roughly 220 years ago and word ‘regulation’ then had a different meaning in common usage. A well-regulated firearm meant one handled properly and wielded with effectiveness. A well regulated militia meant a public well trained and competent with their own guns.

There is no hypocrisy about banning WMD’s or hand grenades, while allowing handguns or rifles. It’s common sense and a matter of balancing public safety with individual rights. Neither grenades nor WMDs are practical for hunting or for self defense outside of warfare. Neither is useful against enemies too close at hand for you to retreat safely, which is the only time that deadly force is legally appropriate in most cases. Neither grenades nor WMDs can be wielded against a specific foe without risking injuring or death to those in the immediate area. Most importantly, neither were mentioned by the Founding fathers in their rationale for including the Second Amendment in the Constitution, nor were cannons or other large scale weapons of war that existed in their day. It is foolish to approach the issue as if the Constitution comes out of a historical vacuum,  as if we dug it up somewhere with no supporting information to put it in context. It is also foolish to fixate on one sentence and arrogantly assume you know what it means while disregarding all the supporting documentation that explains what it means in the language if the day, and what was intended by those that authored and signed the document.

“If you honestly want to know what they intended, don’t ask lawyers or scholars, look to the words of the founders”

I did.  They said, “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state”

I’m definitely anti-gun but it’s always struck me as odd that the people, namely Congress, who champion the right to bear arms applies to us - just as long as we don’t bear them in DC, their backyard. Cluck, cluck, cluck?

Wouldn’t be surprised if the Court rules against the DC resident who wants to own guns simply because he happens to be in the Court’s backyard - a little too close for comfort, right?

It is an intellectually dishonest exercise to question what the Founders intended with the Second Amendment. To imply there is some question is to ignore their direct testimony in hundreds of documents that are contemporary to the Constitution. If you honestly want to know what they intended, don’t ask lawyers or scholars,  look to the words of the founders, or to the press of that day:

”… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
Thomas Paine

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

“The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … “
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.”
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot’s Debates, vol. 3 “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.”

Isn’t this a kind of warped “right to life” decision designed to take away peoples’ “right to choose”?

Sadly, this time it isn’t only that “over emphasis on guns is related to a failure to perform in other areas that certainly indicate masculinity far more pleasurably than firing a gun does…” (#114809 by thomas billis ) but includes the fact that women with guns have men in mind as their targets, uhh.

This whole gun issue is bi-cartograhical. (Yes, I made that word up, or at least I think I did, but I like it) You guys know what that means,,right….you guys are so SMART.  Anyway, guns really mean two totally different things to people, depending upon where you live.

In the city, guns are so often seen as ONLY destructive, whereas in the country they are not.  In CERTAIN rural areas of the country, I think guns are needed.  I’m not going to take on a grizzly bear, cougar or a rattlesnake.  I’ve been way, way out there and trust me, when it’s you or them(animals) you pretty much decide REAL QUICK it’s gonna be YOU.  Although, I’ve never killed an animal, I can honestly say, I would have, if I would have had to.  For the most part, that is the perspective of most people in rural areas.  In fact, many people live in the country precisely because they like animals and nature so much. (Of course….there’s nut jobs EVERYWHERE) But most people in rural areas aren’t bloodthirsty simply because they own a gun.  And you’d be hard pressed to convince them, rightfully so, that guns are “bad”.

Strolling into the wrong “community” anywhere can be…well…hazardous.  It’s the same in the city as it is in the rural areas as far as “nut jobs with guns”.

I think thomas billis said it well when he said, “I would have no trouble with gun ownership at all if you had be tested and licensed such as we do with drivers license.  What we have is a populace that has romanticized gun ownership to a level not seen anywhere else in the western world.”

The romanticization (is that a word or did I make that up too) of guns is largely a city “thing”.  In the city as well as in the country guns should be for the “in case” type of situations.  How do you do that?  I’m not so sure in the city, but in true rural America it’s what they’ve done FOREVER.

As far the supreme court goes, they’ll keep gun ownership alive and well.  Gun ownership in Washington D.C. is a completely different topic than gun ownership in TenSleep, Wyoming.

I would have more respect for the folks who support an individual’s right to bear arms, if those folks were consistent.  However, most of them have no problem with a ban on an individual’s right to own WMDs or even mere hand grenades.  What hypocrites!

“Well-regulated,” by the way, means “well prepared,” or “well outfitted,”

lol

This decision will be right in time for the economic collapse. I expect the gun grabbers will be in high gear from a Supreme Court that encourages tyranny.

Of course, the people of Washington have every right to keep and bear arms. I predict the allegedly “conservative” Bush Supreme Court will deny this right.

The militia, as the Founders pointed out in essay after essay, is all of us.

“Well-regulated,” by the way, means “well prepared,” or “well outfitted,” a fact that is also clear from the context of the Second Amendment, as well as the writings of the Founders.