Pen and Teller explain the Second Amendment...

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: EvillerBob

You sound like a punch and judy show! Oh yes it was. You need to re-read it!!

Which part would you like me to re-read, exactly?

The BoR wording is:

"That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."

This was passed within a context (even explicitly mentioned in the BoR) in which Protestants were subject to more restrictions than others.

The Bill of Rights does not seek to give an unrestricted right to everyone, but to give Protestants equal rights with Catholics - still restricted by law, but equally restricted. The 2A, by contrast, identifies a right that cannot (well, should not) be restricted.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: EvillerBob
The English bill of Rights of 1689 was the inspiration for your 2nd amendment and has been acknowledged as such by the U.S. Supreme Court.

It's not "my" 2A.

The US Supreme Court might have acknowledged the concept of codifying the RKBA as being inspired, but they would be wrong to say that the specific wording or intent of the BoR became the 2A. They achieve different (and contradictory) things.

a reply to: EvillerBob

1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some

Here's a PDF for you to read that states the link to the termonlogy used.
Supreme court ruling

a reply to: EvillerBob

for your 2nd amendment

It's not "my" 2A.

This was used to differentiate between American and British for the grammer nazis!!

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: EvillerBob

1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some

Here's a PDF for you to read that states the link to the termonlogy used.
Supreme court ruling

I am familiar with the Heller decision. Scalia is wrong in his categorisation of the function of the relevant passage. Or, rather, he is right on specific interpretation of the wording, but wrong as to the actual meaning and effect (equality through giving a right not to be subject to discrimination).

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: EvillerBob

You sound like a punch and judy show! Oh yes it was. You need to re-read it!!

Which part would you like me to re-read, exactly?

The BoR wording is:

"That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."

This was passed within a context (even explicitly mentioned in the BoR) in which Protestants were subject to more restrictions than others.

The Bill of Rights does not seek to give an unrestricted right to everyone, but to give Protestants equal rights with Catholics - still restricted by law, but equally restricted. The 2A, by contrast, identifies a right that cannot (well, should not) be restricted.

Pretty sure that catholics had more restrictions on gun ownership than Protestants prior the BoR. The complaint was that the King had not enforced restrictions on Catholics hence the need for Protestants to be armed against the unlawfully armed catholics.

a reply to: EvillerBob


We get jumped on enough by being British with an opinion on the WORLD wide web that has anything to do with American society or the "mighty" Bill of Rights, It was a Supreme court ruling, if you think that Scalia was wrong, that's your opinion.

But thinking is not your guy's strong point is it?

This was a comment made by the OP, my comment was pointing out that English Law was used as inspiration for early American law, and that the American Bill of Rights followed after the English Bill of Rights by over a hundred years and if it's us British that don't think what's it say about Americans!!

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: EvillerBob


We get jumped on enough by being British with an opinion on the WORLD wide web that has anything to do with American society or the "mighty" Bill of Rights, It was a Supreme court ruling, if you think that Scalia was wrong, that's your opinion.

But thinking is not your guy's strong point is it?

This was a comment made by the OP, my comment was pointing out that English Law was used as inspiration for early American law, and that your (American) Bill of Rights followed after the English Bill of Rights by over a hundred years and if it's us British that don't think what's it say about Americans!!

I believe Eviller is English.

a reply to: ScepticScot


I've edited my post to reflect your comment, thanks for the heads up.

a reply to: EvillerBob

He is wrong and you know this how?

I love how we on ats know more about interpreting the constitution than supreme court justices and constitutional lawyers.

I have a question so I can process something better in my mind.

When did the "founding father" era end? Is it just the Constitution when it was signed?

Now, a reply to: dashen

Don't worry the half with the guns probably won't have much trouble with the half without the guns. Which is kind of what the Second Amendment is all about if you think about it. But thinking is not your guy's strong point is it?

I really need help on this one. Which half am I in? Because I can guarantee you're gonna have "trouble" with me. Weak thinking knows no party lines.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Ruth Bader Ginsburg thinks that the age of consent should be 12 years old.

originally posted by: Kurokage
This was used to differentiate between American and British for the grammer nazis!!

*ahem*
G-R-A-M-M-A-R
*salutes*

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: EvillerBob

He is wrong and you know this how?

I love how we on ats know more about interpreting the constitution than supreme court justices and constitutional lawyers.

I wasn't commenting on his interpretation of the constitution, I was commenting on his interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Pretty sure that catholics had more restrictions on gun ownership than Protestants prior the BoR. The complaint was that the King had not enforced restrictions on Catholics hence the need for Protestants to be armed against the unlawfully armed catholics.

Yes. It was a move to ensure a level playing field, rather than enshrine some form of universal right.

16th & 17th Century definition of militia

Every parish furnished a quota of eligible men, whose names were recorded on muster rolls. Likewise, each household was assessed for the purpose of finding weapons, armour, horses, or their financial equivalent, according to their status.

I must have missed the part where I'm supposed to fill this information out on the census.

What is a "militia" ?

a reply to: Eshel

If you would have bothered watching the very short video at the beginning of this thread you would have very clearly seen that the militia is not the people. The militia is the militia and the people are the people and the people have rights that have nothing to do with the militia. One of those rights is to privately bear arms B they muskets or puckle guns or big honkin cannons. Did you know hand grenades were used as Military Arms and could be owned privately in the 18th century? A private individual could buy a Gatling gun in the early nineteen hundreds. Or a bar automatic rifle. Or a Tommy Gun. Or a Howitzer. Taking away the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves only encourages more criminality

a reply to: dashen

Cute response. I've watched that video and also remember watching it when it was first ran on tv.

What I'm offering is context to the amendment. Everyone gets hung up on "arms" and "infringe" but nobody cares to know what the definition of a "militia" is at that time period.

I get a feeling you did not read that definition thoroughly and just rattled off a quick retort. Notice that the "militia" is made up of the people. And to do so, they must be on roll and inventoried.

If we're going to follow the 2nd to the last letter, we have to follow it to the full definition.

a reply to: Eshel

A company is made of people yet it is not people. The police are made of people but the police are not considered the people. The Second Amendment refers to two parties one being the militia and then the people who are the ones being guaranteed these rights under the newly-formed government. What you're saying doesn't even make sense why would the Bill of Rights give an amendment to Grant rights to the militia

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Eshel

A company is made of people yet it is not people. The police are made of people but the police are not considered the people. The Second Amendment refers to two parties one being the militia and then the people who are the ones being guaranteed these rights under the newly-formed government. What you're saying doesn't even make sense why would the Bill of Rights give an amendment to Grant rights to the militia

ok then. Correct me where I may be wrong.

The second amendment gives people the right to bear arms. (i think i understand that part)
Then why the hell would they even use the word "militia" ?

Couldn't they just have said,

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."