where evidence when enacted that second amendment protects individual right to a gun? there is none

Author: n8nrgmi ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 9
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 755
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    even in recent years the court hijacked the meaning of the second amendment. if you look at conservative judges back as recent as the reagan years, you'll see they interpreted it to protect militia, not an individual right to a gun. all you have to do is look at the lack of any evidence at all that the amendment protects an individual right, back when the amendment was passed. every other amendment has clear purpose in the legislative history, but there's no mention of self defense or hunting or any of that for the second amendment. other than a skewed interpretation, there's no evidence for individual rights to a gun outside a militia. 

    for more on gun control science and law and policy, a very informative website, see here....
    guneducationalinformation.weebly.com
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 755
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    i'm just bored right now, so felt the need to debate a dead horse topic, by pointing out the lack of any evidence whatsoever that the amendment protects an individual right to a gun, other than a skewed interpretation. 

    there is a right to self defense, but that's a ninth amendment thing. you could extend that right to the use of a gun, but it's still a ninth amendment thing, not second.

  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,323
    2
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @n8nrgmi
    have you studied heller vs d.c.?


    Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courtsand legislators, from immediately after its ratification through thelate 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.

    I mean if you actually read it, it's a done deal.

    a three-judge panel of the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Colombia, by a two to one vote, reversed the lower court's ruling (Parker v. District of Columbia (478 F. 3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). The appeals court held that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to keep and bear arms” and that the District's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense violated that right (Id., at 395, 399-401).

    Operative Clause. In Scalia's view, the text and history of the amendment's operative clause (i.e., “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”) is controlling. “The people” refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset, such as the militia; the phrase to “keep and bear arms” means to have weapons and carry them, and not just in a military context; and “the right of the people” refers to a preexisting right. Scalia reasons that these textual elements show that the amendment “guarantee(s) the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” and that the amendment's text implicitly recognizes the preexistence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed” (Id., at 2790-2797). Congress merely codified a widely recognized right; it did not create a new right (Id., at 2797).

    Prefatory Clause. According to Scalia, the prefatory clause (“well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”) comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia as being necessary to deny Congress the power to abridge the individual right to keep and bear arms. And while the reason for codifying the prefatory clause “was to ensure the preservation of a
    well-regulated militia, this does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the right to bear arms; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting” (Id., at 2801).

    The Court did not identify the specific standard it used to make its individual-right determination. But it rejected the rational basis standard. And it rejected Breyer's interest-balancing approach, which asks whether a law “burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out or proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests” (Id., at 2852). According to Scalia, the Second Amendment is the “product of an interest-balancing by the people . . . and it elevates above all other interests the right of law–abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home” (Heller at 2821). The enumeration of that right, Scalia reasons:
    takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject of future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all (Id., at 2821).
    While acknowledging the serious problem of handgun violence, Scalia asserts that the Second Amendment “necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” including an absolute ban on handguns in the home for self-defense (Id., at 2822).


    some similar cases which might be of interest


    I believe I have posted, probably several time old writings, letters etc of people carrying weapons pre constitution and that it was part of the English common law

    so that is what was going on pre constitution and post constitution, it has always been that way.  When you understand that the constitution and bill of rights is a formal acknowledgement of inalienable rights, English common law was used for many of those rights which includes the 2a.
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 755
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    yes, i already acknowledged it's possible to have that skewed interpretation. all you've posted is how it's possible to have that interpretation.

    i continue, yet again, to notice you have no evidence during the enactment that they meant to protect guns outside the militia or for self defense or hunting and such. 
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,323
    2
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @n8nrgmi
    oh they weren't just protecting guns which is why they used the term arms maybe lookup what that meant in that day and age, that might help you.
    what part of precedence and common law is confusing you?
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 755
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    why do you have to look 1. another countries common law 2. another right altogether, the right to self defense? every other amendment has a clear legislsative history to its purpose, why can't you or dont you look at that? oh, that's right. there's no evidence there. 
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,323
    2
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @n8nrgmi
    because if you read the history on the constitution and laws that's where much of it comes from, do you think they just pulled these ideas out of thin air?
    how about you stop trying to be a smart ass and read up on these things so you don't look so ignorant?


    Why You Can’t Understand the Constitution Without the Common Law

    The main difference between English and U.S. safeguards is that English protections rest on statute or case law and may be changed by ordinary statute, whereas U.S. safeguards are constitutional and cannot be relaxed unless the Supreme Court later reverses its interpretation or the Constitution is amended.



    if you can't see the link between English common law and the American legal system we really don't have anything else to discuss.

  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 755
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    you just choose to ignore that every other amendment has clear legislative purpose to it, but when it comes to the second amendment, you think we have to draw on english common law. that's where the break down is. you're not being consistent. if you can't find legislative purpose to have a gun for self defense or hunting or any other reason than being in a militia, just admit it. do you admit it?
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,323
    2
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @n8nrgmi
    you can deny what I have posted but that doesn't invalidate it or support your position, there are clear connections between the english common law and American law but if you choose to not see it, I can't force you to.
    If you'd like to prove all those links wrong feel free otherwise how can you deny the connection they prove?
    once you answer that much I'll go further, but since that is the very beginning of our legal system you have to agree that it is.