Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - mason123

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 50
Yes, armed militia resistance defeated the British. I thank you for clarifying that they had bullets as well, I was about to assume that they had defeated the British simply with bayonets. They had arms, and they had bullets. Thank you for clarifying.
No... armed militia did not have "Arms and Bullets". They had "Guns and Bullets". Or as the phrase is traditionally, commonly, and correctly applied: They bore arms.
I guess that is up for interpretation! I consider an 'arm' to be an arming mechanism, and bullets and ammunition are already secondary elements.

Edit: Who talks like that? "Yeah I bought some arms and bullets at the gun shop the other day."
Did the framers talk like that? If they did not specifically say rifles or guns in the constitution, maybe the framers intended for common citizens to have cannon, rockets and missiles.

I do not want those things you speak of, but a broad interpretation of 'arms' can open up a can of worms that we do not foresee yet.

Move past just the text and the academics of it dude, put it into context.  Like the context of the REAL WORLD, then try to make some arguments...

Then try to make some arguments? What? Are you saying that nuclear weapons cannot be attained without being an official of a reputable government? Terrorists cannot attain nuclear weapons? Why is it so hard to imagine that if the Second Amendment is to be interpreted in a broad sense that potentially massive consequences may transpire?

You are the ONLY person who thinks you are right. Not just in this thread, but in how the US government has defined the term "arms" since the founding of our country. Not just in the US but in linguistic conventions that go all the way back to latin. Ok. You are right in your own mind. Great.
Ah, many thought Galileo was wrong too. What can I say? I like to be in the same category as Galileo.

Sure. When the founders wrote the constitution, they had no clue that there would one day be something like a nuclear weapon. They wrote an amendment that made perfect sense for their time, but makes no sense for ours. So? This doesn't mean that they were somehow irrational for writing it. It means that it's irrational to not amend the constitution to revoke this right. The whole purpose of the amendment process is to create contingencies for situations that the founders could not foresee.
We are not amending the constitution right now, are we? It is a Supreme Court case that may decide how to interpret the 2nd amendment. I have my own perspective on how it is interpreted, but we are not changing it.

During the framing of the constitution, "Armed" militia resistance defeated the British. They used bullets. That's the etymology of the term used in the constitution. This is clear as day, and you are being intentionally obtuse.
Yes, armed militia resistance defeated the British. I thank you for clarifying that they had bullets as well, I was about to assume that they had defeated the British simply with bayonets. They had arms, and they had bullets. Thank you for clarifying.

I do not want those things you speak of, but a broad interpretation of 'arms' can open up a can of worms that we do not foresee yet.

I am going to extremes, because extremes are possible. They are not certain to occur, but the potential is there Jeffort. I do not see how delving into the extremes of an argument would automatically make my point invalid.


The premise of the clause is that the "Arms" are to be used for militia service. A militia uses bullets as part of it's armnamnent.  This isn't a framer's intent argument - this is strict constructionist. Your definition is too narrow. This is why your dictionary disagrees with Majin's

The etymology of the word "arms" refers to any and all things that have been used by men to wage war.

Etymology of the word "Arms" from Etyomology online:

"weapon," 1300, from O.Fr. armes (pl.), from L. arma "weapons," lit. "tools, implements (of war),"

Bullets MOST CERTAINLY are "tools or implements of war".

I'm not trying to offend you here. I like you. But you are wrong on this issue everywhere except inside your own head. I'm done with this argument, because it's a non-starter. You want to believe what you want to believe even though there is a mountain of evidence that completely contradicts you. Very well. Enjoy.
Except you are not the final judge of who is right or wrong here. You have your perspective, I have mine. I already know that you think I am wrong, or else there would be no argument here. No need to state the obvious. The argument does not end on your perception of who is right or wrong on this matter.

By your definition of 'arm', nuclear weapons are weapons of war and so average citizens should be granted access to such tools. Rockets and missiles should be accessible as well. Mines and bombs are also fair game. They all have a military purpose. Under your interpretation of 'arm', there would be no legal way to prevent unstable individuals from being granted access to weapons of all sorts, for we can not infringe on their right.

It is interesting that you have looked up the etymology of the word 'arm' without considered the potential for words to have drastically different meanings over time. Does the original meaning of the word 'arm' have the same meaning as did the word 'arm' during the framing of the constitution?

My point is, just because a former court or congress had interpreted the constitution in a way that limits some rights, does not mean that the current Supreme Court will rule in similar fashion. That is all.

Every right granted in the Constitution is limited to some degree. To broadly state that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed does not mean that right is unlimited. Same with freedom of speech, due process, equal protection, and so forth. In certain scenarios, certain rights can and do conflict with each other such that neither can ever be held to be absolute. Given that entrenched understanding, there is nothing in my analysis of the Second Amendment that guarantees the right to bear arms to "loonies."

Limited to some degree according to the decision of who or what institution? The Supreme Court? Limitations on our constitutional rights can be over-turned by the same institution that initially established those limitations, IE: the Supreme Court or Congress. Just because some rights are limited by one instance of the Supreme Court in the past, does not mean that this constitutional right will be blurred by the current Supreme Court.

No, my argument appeals to the only document that is 100% valid in this case... a document from which we must base our judicial decisions. Your arguments are based on the intentions of framers, dictionaries and personal perspectives that are ultimately subjective sources of information. We are given the right to possess and bear ARMS, not necessarily AMMUNITION. That is all.

Your definition is too narrow. No court in any state in the history of the nation has defined arms the way that you do. I understand where you are coming from, but in this instance, you are simply wrong - from a strict constructionist point of view, as well as a framer's intent point of view.
What? Just because no one has done it before, does not mean I am simply wrong. Your argument is flawed because it appeals to authority. The opinions of these authorities may very well change, so you cannot use them to power your position. The reason why sawed off shotguns were banned is because they had no military purpose! So what does that mean? Nuclear weapons have a military purpose, so they are good to go? Stop. We would be lucky if the Supreme Court adopted my view, because almost any other pro-gun perspective would make it easy as cake to put guns into the hands of loonies like those that perpetrated the massacre at VA and Columbine High School.

The term 'arms' encompasses potentially military grade equipment that activates munitions. Munitions DO NOT necessarily fall under the term 'arm'. That is way too broad, and SIMPLY dangerous.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 50