Doctor Fate wrote:

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

"The People," not "the government," not "the National Guard," but "the people."

Yup. But that's 'the people' not 'people' or 'persons'.

A militia does not have to be 'the government' or 'the national guard', and indeed at the time it often was not.

As was just ruled in throwing out the Illinois law, "the people" means "the citizens" and "shall not be infringed" means just that.

Well, It's not the same as "the citizens" because not all people are citizens. But the problem is that there has been an interpretation of "the people" that broadens it out into "people", losing the collective status of the phrase. As I have said earlier, the Second Amendment itself is not necessarily the problem, it's the interpretation of it.

Now, as I've read and heard more about this story, I cannot fathom the mindset of the suspect's mother. She knew her son had Asperger's Syndrome and, apparently, lacked the ability to empathize. Why you would teach a young man like that to shoot (they regularly went shooting) I have no idea.

Neither do I. Why was she allowed to bring such weapons into a house in such a situation? Why did she have a semi-automatic rifle, which would have been illegal under the assault weapons ban that came in in the 1990s? Again, I can't think why that should have been allowed or have happened, completely legally.

Your view perhaps differs on those questions. The tragedy is, if you want to put responsibility onto the mother here, that her apparent mistake didn't just cost her her own life, and that of her son, but a lot more.

What my point is, with regard to the amendments and terms, is that it is a plural right of individuals. That's how it's written grammatically. "the people" have the right to be secure in their persons. The term "person" and "persons" was used as imagery of a body, but more expansive, such as to include coat pockets and property.

By your own argument on the second amendment, the undefined collective "the people" can be continuously reduced to the household. If your definition is right, it still succeeds to families, and ultimately, individuals. Feds>States>localities>families. And I don't think you'd limit a right based on someone's marital or living status.

With regard to my comment about "radical", I'm not using it in a sense of left/right. Also, I made a claim with regard to intent. I do believe that the government was intended to be radical--radically pro-individual rights. In that context, the intent can be further seen. The Bolsheviks didn't exist in 1789.

Remember the context and people involved. So little attention gets paid to the anti-federalists and Articles of Confederation. While the constitution replaced the articles, it wasn't to completely contradict them. Even as expressed by the founders, these laws and enumeration of rights were compounded, if you will, on the prior rights and enumerations even going back to the Magna Carta. Likewise, remember the emphasis on individual rights. The continuation of expanding rights was based on prior expansions, but were not meant to contradict them. Common law was (and is still in some states) not replaced, but expanded.

That's why there were those who originally fought for the rights of women and even slaves.

I saw a Johns Hopkins professor who had studied mass shootings since the 70s in the US. Her findings: (1) all or virtually all of the shooters had some mental illness, though in many instances it had not been diagnosed or treated prior to the shooting, (2) typically, the shooter made known his intent prior to the shooting, and (3) all of the shootings occurred in either small towns or suburbs (not in major cities)
60 minutes had a story where friends of the mother said she told them the shooter suffered from Asperger's Syndrome and was on medication

Some info about this topic: http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkb ... ed-states/

Guapo, my arguments on what a militia is (and you don't really have single-household militia) are not to be conflated with my arguments on what 'the people' means. In the context of the USSC, 'the people' means 'the people of the United States', and I never argued that the term had subsidiarity.

danivon

As I have said earlier, the Second Amendment itself is not necessarily the problem, it's the interpretation of it.

All of the arguements about the Constitution seem to be your interpretation of the 2nd Amnedment. And Guapo disagrees with you.
For direction on how the 2nd is now interpreted shouldn't one rather look to how the SCOTUS has recently ruled on matters relating
The SCOTUS declared the Washington DC law banning hand guns unconstitutional. It seems that however the original intent and wording of the Constitution, there is now an interpretation that the right is individual.
This ruling is indicative of the difficulty gun control proponents will have in defending gun control laws when challenged in court ... And if so, the 2nd will have to be amended for effective action to take place.

Danivon

Frankly, I don't think that the founders were paranoid

guapo

Your argument ignores the fact that the anti-federalists had a major part in the Bill of Rights. They feared the constitution (and for good reason), and as George Mason said, "Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can."
The evidence that the two clause amendment was intended as such is clear. The phrase "the people" is clearly regarding individuals, as it is used in the other amendments. So, it was a two-way protection--the states against the feds, and the people (individuals) against all tyrannical governments.

Guapos' response clearly indicates a distrust of the very instruments and institutions of democracy, and therefore a fundamental distrust of other citizens.
It may be too strong a word, paranoia, if one considers the clinical definition and not the colloquial, but there is a contradiction in creating a constitution and the instruments of democracy as guarantors of liberty THEN insisting upon a guarantee to provide recourse to armed resistance against the government or governments that are a result of the Constitution.

Its that contradiction that continues to vex the nation. And will, until the 2nd is updated to reflect the realities of the 21st century.

fate

Why you would teach a young man like that to shoot (they regularly went shooting) I have no idea.

But you defend her right to do so.

Intelligent discussion of the topic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-do-we-have-the-courage-to-stop-this.html

Look, I grew up on an Oregon farm where guns were a part of life; and my dad gave me a .22 rifle for my 12th birthday. I understand: shooting is fun! But so is driving, and we accept that we must wear seat belts, use headlights at night, and fill out forms to buy a car. Why can’t we be equally adult about regulating guns?

rickyp wrote:danivon

As I have said earlier, the Second Amendment itself is not necessarily the problem, it's the interpretation of it.

All of the arguements about the Constitution seem to be your interpretation of the 2nd Amnedment. And Guapo disagrees with you.

Well yes, Ricky. I have been making the case that the 2nd Amendment has been misinterpreted. That includes by the courts, as well as by op-ed writers and NRA spokespeople.

For direction on how the 2nd is now interpreted shouldn't one rather look to how the SCOTUS has recently ruled on matters relating
The SCOTUS declared the Washington DC law banning hand guns unconstitutional. It seems that however the original intent and wording of the Constitution, there is now an interpretation that the right is individual.

So it seems. But I believe this to be incorrect, based on the language used. 'Originalists' and 'Literalists' claim to do the same thing when it comes to other SCOTUS or lower court decisions that they don't like. The original text does not imply on its own the absolute right to own handguns or carry them in public.

This ruling is indicative of the difficulty gun control proponents will have in defending gun control laws when challenged in court ... And if so, the 2nd will have to be amended for effective action to take place.

I think DC is slightly different as it is a Federal area, not a sovereign state, and so other types of legislation would likely have a different result.

guapo

The right and reason to bear arms must be defended at these times, and it's no less callous

Would I be wrong in interpreting your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as you've argued with Danivon as your major reason to defend the right to bear arms?
- That is, the ability for individual citizens to defend against tyranny.

Or would you provide another reason as predominant?

Connecticut's gun control laws are among the most stringent in the country, this shooter had applied and was turned down for a gun license. He stole them from his Mother, This situation is terrible, absolutely horrible but little could have changed the situation if someone is hell bent on doing something so insane and unforeseen.
He stole the guns, he broke into a locked school, he gunned down children!

The President gave a very nice speech, I am not going to dismiss anything he said (hell, I am a conservative who FAVORS strict gun laws). He did make mention:

If there’s even one step we can take to save another child or another parent or another town from the grief that’s visited Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek and Newtown and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that, then surely we have an obligation to try.

It sounds nice and I agree we need to try to clean things up (again, I am an advocate of stricter laws) but we need to include "within reason" to this statement. We COULD outlaw guns and that would save some people, we COULD outlaw free speech, the right to assemble, freedom of religion, etc and these things would result in some people being saved, we COULD spend billions of dollars installing bars on every school elementary to college, every hospital and shopping mall, it would no doubt save SOME, we could install barricades to prevent possible car bombs but the costs are astounding for the incredibly TINY fraction of such situations (who would have thought an elementary school would be shot up?) We need to something WITHIN REASON and part of that includes our constitutional rights as well.

Would restoring and enforcing the 1994 ban on semi-automatic weapons be within reason?

Would a fundamental change to how mental health is approached be within reason?

You talk about an 'incredibly tiny fraction' of these situations. It's an even tinier fraction over here. But unfortunately schools are quite common targets in the USA.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-202a.htm

You mean like the one that Connecticut has in place already? Quite effective wasn't it.

I apologize for not commenting for a few days. I get quite angry at evil people. I did not want to spew vitriol on my friends here. Much better to calm my anger before I say something that is wrong and disrespectful. Thank you all for your patience.

I read that all the way down. It is not a ban, bbauska, it's restrictions. It allowed the killer's mother to lawfully hold the semiautomatic in her home.

And as well as gun control legislation, there could be more gun control enforcement.

I am agreed that the laws on the books should be enforced, regardless of it being a gun law or any other kind of law. As you know, I am for the "fullest extent of the law" being enforced.