Copernicus said:

It actually is important, because the Supreme Court has the absolute authority to interpret what Constitutional language means, whether you or I like it or not.

Not actually factual. The FINAL authority is we the people. A "Not Guilty" virdict trumps supreme Court rulings. The right of the citizens to Nullify shows where the REAL absolute authority lies. Prohibition ended in large part because the citizens stopped convicting other citizens of manufacturing, possessing, transporting, selling, buying or consuming alcoholic beverages, even in the face of the government - at all levels in all branches. There was even a Constitutional Amendment that allowed Prohibition, and made it "the Law of the Land," but we the people took the power to enforce it out of their hands. Likewise, a single "not guilty" verdict could stop even a felon from going to jail for possessing a firearm. (A case where a juror might vote 'not guilty'? Many felonies seek to control behavior that does not involve victimization. A person convicted of a non-violent, victimless crime is no danger to others, so he should not be deprived of his right to self-defense.)

In all cases where the Supreme Court has ruled, it has ruled that the Constitution does not protect gun ownership as an individual right.

Please prove this statement. Cite a case where the supreme Court said, "the Constitution does not protect gun ownership as an individual right."
Meanwhile, I submit this. I might have, already, but you apparently didn't read and comprehend it if I did, so I post it (again?) now.

Report by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution (1982)-- "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." U.S. Senate, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms," Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, (1982):12. [emphasis added.]
 
Furthermore, even if the Court were to interpret it as an individual right, the government could still impose reasonable regulation on ownership--e.g. licensing, registration, and training.

Licensing and registration are merely steps to confiscation, and so can and should be opposed, violently if necessary, hopefully not. The RKBA cannot entail preconditions. The Supreme Court held in Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965) that the First Amendment prevents the government from registering purchasers of magazines and newspapers -- even if such material is "communist political propaganda." Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 85 S. Ct. 1493, 14 L. Ed. 2d 398 (1965).  Training, as opposed to the other two steps you named, may be a good idea, but requiring it before a citizen may own and carry a gun should also be opposed.

Near v. Minnesota -- In this case, the Supreme Court stated that government officials should punish the abuse of a right and not place prior restraints on the exercise of the right. The court stated, "The fact that the liberty of the press may be abused by miscreant purveyors of scandal does not make any less necessary the immunity of the press from previous restraint in dealing with official misconduct. Subsequent punishment for such abuses as may exist is the appropriate remedy, consistent with constitutional privilege." Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931).

All rights are subject to reasonable regulation, even the right of free speech. It would just be unable to pass laws that prevented gun ownership under reasonable circumstances

"It" who/what would be unable to? If they're "reasonable", why would it be that they are unable to be passed before an individual can take ownership of guns?   
Should I have interpreted your statement as "It would just be unable to pass laws that prevented gun ownership under reasonable circumstances, so unreasonable circumstances must be used."? That would seem to be a fitting description of the arguments of the gun-grabbers.

The question of whether the Anti-Federalists were right or wrong is moot,

So was your bringing it up in the first place, then.

... and I doubt that even you would like to return to the chaos that prevailed under the Articles of Confederation.

You might be right, I don't know for sure. I do believe that a better system could have been found "in order to form a more perfect Union." The Covenant of Unanimous Consent" might be one suggestion.
http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html
 
You ignored my point about legislative language, so I'll make it again.  Such language is deemed "parsimonious" in the sense that every word is taken to have significance.  That is because such language usually involves compromise between contentious factions, and the language that results is often intentionally ambiguous or obscure in order to guarantee ratification.  Each side often puts in language that a future court can use to promote its favored interpretation.  Seen in this light, the agreement by Anti-Federalists to allow the reference to militia duty can be treated as highly significant to those who interpret the law.

In this case, however, I don't see it as an issue, since the militias are we the people, and militias are to be armed privately, so private ownership of the weapons of war (including cannon) is a right protected by the 2nd. The language states WHY the private individuals' RKBA is secured, not WHO is a private individual - the militia-man or the farmer, or whoever. The 2nd is there to ensure the "security of a free state," which means we own guns so that we may even overthrow an abusive government, if necessary. The 2nd shows that the Framers knew they were not the Final Authority, we the people are. The government exists (as the Unanimous Declaration of Independence says) "with the consent of the governed." When we consent to government, all is good. When we cease to consent, we have the right, even the DUTY, to replace that government with one that DOES suit our ends - that is, the securing of our rights.
Banning guns does not make us more secure.

Me:
"So why are you advocating disarming the militias, by denying them (that is, US, the INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS) the right to arm ourselves?"
Cop:
But I'm not.  Citizens are allowed to join the National Guard, which is what replaced the state militias after the Civil War.[/i]

A) Yes, you are, because the militias are not the National Guard. The Founding Fathers, the U.S. Congress, and the supreme Court all agree. For example,
U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report (1982). "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. . . . There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a 'militia,' they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard." U.S. Senate, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms," Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, (1982):7. [Emphasis added]
B) The United States has never undergone a "Civil War." In a Civil War, two (or more) factions vie for control of the same government. In the case of the Recent Unpleasantness, one faction sought divorce from an abusive partner, and was attacked, whipped and beaten, and then dragged kicking and screaming back to the marriage by the other faction.
 
It is no longer as free from federal control as the militias were, but the Civil War rendered the older Anti-Federalist issue moot.  The militias were, in fact, federalized.

False. See the U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report (1982), above, and pay particular attention to the YEAR the report was filed. Now that you know this, I am sure you will want to revise and extend your remarks so as to reflect reality, and not the fantasies of the gun-grabbing crowd, er, I mean gun control lobby.

And the federal government did not impose the tyranny that they originally feared it would.

You haven't paid much attention to your U.S. or world history classes, have you? That's what governments DO! According to L. Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman, the U.S. Federal and State Governments are deeply involved in violating every one of the Bill of Rights. [See the novel Hope by Smith & Zelman http://www.jpfo.org/hope.htm ] The Federal Government has heaped one tyranny upon another, and (only) some of them have been rejected, to the extent that the Government has had to pay reparations. Government is force. Nothing else. Politics is deciding who will run your life. Guns in the hands of the citizens help the government understand that it exists at our consent, and to serve our ends.

The National Guards issue government-owned weapons to their soldiers.

Just one way to distinguish a militia from the Guard. The National Guard is not the militia, and so the militias must still be we the people, who, when mustered, bring with us our own, privately owned machineguns, cannon, and pistols.

You are attempting to impose a definition of 'militia' that has simply not been endorsed by the Supreme Court, although it has been ratified by the NRA and its vast army of sympathizers.

You wrote that before you read the report I have repeatedly cited and quoted, so I'll just let this one slide. Your welcome.

I agree that the federal government would run up against the 2nd Amendment if it tried to disband the National Guard.

Interesting idea, but why would the Federal Gov't try to disband the National Guard, which are under the control of the Governors of the several States (unless I just answered my own question)? But, if the Fed. Gov. did try, they would soon find out that militias still exist, and they exist to defend the citizens of the several States against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." If the Federal Government won't guard us, and in stead try to prevent the Guard from doing it, then the citizens MUST do it!
 
Otherwise, the 2nd is about as useful or relevant to modern America as the 3rd is.

Remember my calling upon Hope by Smith & Zelman? There's a passage in there that might show how wrong that statement of yours is. I'll have to see if I can find either my copy of the book, or the individual passage. [Time passes.] Here it is.
"No nation with a Third Amendment to its Constitution -- forbidding the peacetime quartering of soldiers in any home without the consent of the owners -- no such nation has any place for police state tax laws that accomplish exactly the same thing, depriving individuals of half of what they earn, sacking their fondest dreams, looting the futures of their children, pillaging their hopes, reducing them all to bitter ashes." " Hope Smith & Zelman, pg 115.

As for the development of Constitutional law in the 20th century, I couldn't disagree more with you.  Do you advocate a return to racial apartheid or political witch hunts?  I certainly don't.

A) I believe that a man has the right to freely assemble with those who are willing to associate with him, and that a man has the right to refuse to associate with any man with whom that man does NOT want to associate, and that a man does NOT have the right to associate with a man who does not want to associate with him. That includes refusing the second man access to the first man's goods, services, or patronage. IOW, if Sally doesn't want to sell her posies to Ya'akov because Ya'akov's Jewish, then that is what happens, Ya'akov can go buy posies somewhere else. But if I know Sally won't sell to Jews, then I won't buy from her either, nor will I sell her anything of mine she might want to buy. I won't greet her in the street, and I won't let my children greet her children, nor play with them. It's called "shunning." That's Freedom of Association.
B) Political witch hunts are sometimes useful, such as when politicians use the Law to imprison those politicians who violate the property rights & liberty of others or harm or endanger others, or conspire to do so.  The force of Law should, for example, be used to imprison and/or fine (almost) every politician who has ever voted FOR (almost) any gun control law.

Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -
They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life." Title 18, U.S. Code, Sections 241, 242
[Read "Ban a Gun - Go to Jail" http://www.lneilsmith.org/banagun.html ]

As I understand it, you're okay, because you're just talking about doing it. That's protected speech under the 1st. But any elected or appointed government official who votes to ban guns, and any law enforcement officer who enforces such a gun control "law" is due his day in court before a jury of his peers. Unfortunately, it may never come; your local sheriff will probably go to his grave being praised for his anti-gun policies, but that wouldn't mean he was right or justified in depriving his county's citizens of their RKBA.

I certainly wouldn't want you to feel weak or helpless.

Good, then. In fact, I defend myself by use of aikido, so I usually leave the revolver at home these days. I used to carry it around, though. But if Sally's got no legs, so she can't run, and can't easily perform many aikido techniques, or she's just plain lazy, or she's 12 years old, or whatever her reasoning is, maybe she just wants to defend herself with a firearm, she's got every RIGHT to do so. Keep your mitts off her gun belt, if you'd be so very kind.

On the other hand, if you are suffering from a delusion that everyone is out to get you, then I certainly don't want you roaming the streets with a gun, either.

A) Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you.
B) It's not your job to decide if I'm paranoid, but what have you heard, who have you been talking to, and what do you know that I don't?
C) I don't care what you do or don't want me carrying around anywhere, unless by its very nature, it's harming you. For example, I would certainly not want radioactive material just passing down the streets willy-nilly so that all and sundry get radiation poisoning, but there is no such danger with firearms. What makes firearms dangerous is their employment, not their very make-up.

Gun ownership gives you that feeling of security.  Lax gun laws robs me of mine.

Your lack of a feeling of security in no way has anything to do with my being able to carry a firearm. Your emotions and hang-ups are yours, just as my paranoia is mine to deal with. You shouldn't trade a feeling of security for liberty, and I have no intention of giving up my liberty for you to (maybe) feel secure.
 
That's why it's healthy to debate this issue.  We all have legitimate perspectives on this matter.

We have different perspectives, but how legitimate they are is what is open for debate.

Cop said:

Jury nullification only applies to jury trials,

Except for tax court, how often are the accused refused jury trials?

It is rarely used,

Partly because the judges will stop the defense from informing the jurors that they CAN nullify; most jurors don't study their responsibilities and rights as jurors to learn about Nullification; and because it is a VERY powerful tool, in that it throws "Representative Government" out the window in favor of "I say so." There may be other reasons.

and it cannot be used to repeal laws.

It can, and it has. Prohibition was repealed in part becaise the courts couldn't get convictions often enough to make prosecutions cost-effective, because of the danger of random prosecutions, and equal protection under the law. I submit that the jurors had decided they had had enough of Prohibition, and got rid of it by Nullification. They used it to repeal the Law in poractice until it was finally repealed in fact.

The Supreme Court never conducts jury trials,

Add the words, "any more." This is my understanding, and it is a change from the way the Court ran in the early years of the Republic.

... and it does have the final authority to interpret the letter of the law.

Until and unless the jurors of America decide they have had enough of the abuses heaped upon them by an unrelenting government, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches working in tandem.

Jury nullification derives from de facto common law, not the Constitution, and it really reflects a situation where the jury decides to override the law.

Hence, my original statement stands.

Is there even a single trial where a jury has overridden a gun control law?

I would wager "yes" to be the correct answer, but don't feel the need to prove it with stats or particulars, and I'd wager that it happens a lot more often than the stats would indicate, because a juror is not required to explain his vote of "not guilty," and that "not guilty" vote is unreviewable. If a single juror votes "not guilty" and his fellows disagree, so long as he holds to his guns, there will be a mistrail, and the State will have to decide if it's worth it to retry the case. In that situation, I could see the Nullification reason coming to light. But if the jury is in complete agreement, the court will probably just assume they failed to prove THIS accused was guilty, not that the law itself was rejected.

During Prohibition, it happened as much as 60% of the time, and it was a factor in the ultimate amendment to the Constitution.  Jury nullification is more likely to help you if they ever arrest you for the weed that is contributing to your pro-gun fantasies than to get you off the hook for violating a gun control law.

But it CAN be used to overturn gun "laws," so I rest my case.

The majority of the people in the US actually favor tougher gun control laws than we have now.

Which is why I mention Nullification as often as I can. Then, only ONE right-thinking citizen in twelve needs to know he has the power to allow the accused to walk free, at least for a while, while the State decides to retry the case against him.

If you think that juries are going to start overriding the law in support of the NRA, then you really need to stop smoking that stuff.

That's probably ad hominem, but I could be wrong.

In all cases where the Supreme Court has ruled on 2nd Amendment issues, it has never ruled that gun ownership is a protected individual right.

Oh. Well that's better, I guess. Rewording it that way merely makes it necessary for me to demand you prove it, yet again. Please answer the question rather than dodge it.
As I've already shown that the Court HAS recognized that the 2nd recognizes gun ownership as a protected individual right. In fact, you, yourself, recognized that the 2nd secures gun ownership as a right, though you refuse to admit that the militias are not the Guard, though I've pointed it out three times so far.

As I see it, here's where we stand:
Posted by: Copernicus  Posted on: December 20, 2006, 01:38:43 AM  
"Since state militias were armed by private means, the 2nd was intended to block the federal government from passing a law to disarm the state militias."
Posted by: Copernicus  Posted on: December 20, 2006, 01:38:43 AM  
"In the end, your right to bear arms is only protected in connection with militia duty."
Posted by: Copernicus  Posted on: December 22, 2006, 04:55:21 PM  
"Citizens are allowed to join the National Guard, which is what replaced the state militias after the Civil War." [Proven to be an incorrect statement in my next post, although it had already been proven wrong earlier.]
  
My right to bear arms is protected, if only for militia duty, which is defined as all men between 17 and 45 (or so), and which were armed privately (meaning by us, the citizens) with our own firearms, for the the security of a free State, that is, to secure freedom.

You don't seem to know that only people have rights, and no group has more rights than any one person. Therefore, no Guard or militia can hold guns if the Guardsman or militiaman cannot hold guns. The militias are armed privately, whereas, as you noted, Guards are armed by the government. Therefore, the Guard is not the militia.
And the citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, whether for militia service or not.

Do you honestly think I haven't read that a million times before?

And you want me to believe you read it all those times without comprehension? What incentive is there to carry on this conversation still?

Nobody but gun enthusiasts consider it anything but a footnote in the perennial struggle to rewrite Constitutional history.

Incorrect. It's actually a piece produced to EXPOSE Constitutional history.  

Me:
"Licensing and registration are merely steps to confiscation, and so can and should be opposed, violently if necessary, hopefully not..."
Cop:
You really do believe all that propaganda, don't you?

Can the truth be properly termed "propaganda"? Yes, I believe it.

Few politicians have the spine to back federal licensing and registration, let alone gun confiscation.

Poppysmall bunnies! YOU do, don't you!? Do you really think you're all that "unique"? In fact, I believe the type of mentality that seeks public office desires power and control over others, and that makes them MORE likely to support licensing, registration and gun confiscation. When the citizens are weaker, they will depend on government to protect them, empowering government. It's the citizens, the average citizens who want to be able to defend themselves, without having to wait for the government to get around to doing it, who oppose the gun-grabbing "laws."

But this kind of hysterical scare tactic really resonates well with a lot of gun owners, doesn't it?

And what tactics do gun-grabbers use? Why, scare tactics, of course.
"We can't have private citizens defending themselves with giuns, now can we? Why, they might put their eye out with one of those things!"
"We can't allow the regular citizen to have a fully automatic rifle, why they might just go ape-squeeze and start blowing holes in school children."
"We can't allow militias to own 'assault weapons', because they might just use them against the BATF folks who bust down their doors in the middle of the night when they come to arrest the home-brewer or the DEA come to collect the nasty ol' pot smokers."
  
They will come for your gun just after they confiscate your car.

Are cars designed to kill people, or is that just an unfortunate by-product of their use? Why, then, would government confiscate cars?
But, history shows that gun registation and licensing DOES in fact lead to confiscation.

Background checks can (and do) lead to gun registration

* Justice Department report (1989). "Any system that requires a criminal history record check prior to purchase of a firearm creates the potential for the automated tracking of individuals who seek to purchase firearms."43

* Justice Department initiates registration (1994). The Justice Department gave a grant to the city of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University to create a sophisticated national gun registry using data compiled from states' background check programs. This attempt at registration was subsequently defeated in the courts.44

* More gun owner registration (1996). A new computer software distributed by the Justice Department allows police officials to easily (and unlawfully) register the names and addresses of gun buyers. This software -- known as FIST -- also keeps information such as the type of gun purchased, the make, model and caliber, the date of purchase, etc.45 The instant background check could be a key component in registering this information in the computer software.46

* Federal Bureau of Investigation registers gun owners (1998). Despite prohibitions in federal law, the FBI announced that it would begin keeping gun buyer's names for six months. FBI had originally wanted to keep the names for 18 months, but reduced the time period after groups like Gun Owners of America strongly challenged the legality of their actions. GOA submitted a formal protest to the FBI, calling their attempt at registration both "unlawful" and "unconstitutional."47

* California. State officials have used the state background check -- required during the waiting period -- to compile an illegal registry of handgun owners. These lists have been compiled without any statutory authority to do so.48

* Nationwide. Highly acclaimed civil rights attorney, researcher and author, David Kopel, has noted several states where either registration lists have been illegally compiled from background checks or where such registration lists have been abused by officials.49

[notes]
43. Richard B. Abell, Assistant Attorney General, Task Force Chairman, Report to the Attorney General on Systems for Identifying Felons Who Attempt to Purchase Firearms, October 1989, p. 75.
44. Bureau of Justice Assistance, Grant Manager's Memorandum, Pt. 1: Project Summary, September 30, 1994, Project Number: 94-DD-CX-0166.
45. Copy of "FIST" (Firearms Inquiry Statistical Tracking) software at GOA headquarters, Springfield, VA. See also Pennsylvania Sportsmen's News, (Oct./Nov. 1996). The default in the "FIST" computer software is for the police officials to indefinitely retain the information on gun owners -- despite the fact that the Brady law only allows officials to retain this data for 20 days. One wonders who will ensure that this information will be deleted after the 20th day.
46. Mike Slavonic, NRA Director and Chairman of the Legislative Committee for the Allegheny County Sportsmen's League, states that the instant background check could be "our downfall." He notes that, "What most Americans don't know is that once instant check goes into effect in 1998 the purpose of Brady could be used to set the stage for national confiscation. Instant check could eventually keep guns out of the hands of everyone by registering everyone who purchases a handgun, rifle and shotgun and who obtained concealed weapons permits in a computerized database like 'FIST'. The most difficult problem with a gun ban is locating the firearms. FIST [with the help of the instant check], over time, could solve that problem." Slavonic, "Another Gun Database Discovered," Pennsylvania Sportsmen's News, at 7.
47. FBI's Final Rule printed in the Federal Register, October 30, 1998 at 58311. After the FBI submitted its proposed regulations on June 4, 1998, Gun Owners of America submitted written comments (in September of 1988) to challenge the FBI's regulations. GOA stated, "These proposed regulations are unlawful and unconstitutional. They are so fundamentally corrupt that there are no incremental changes which will even marginally improve them. Rest assured that they will be challenged in every possible judicial and legislative forum. . . . The efforts to retain information on gun owners for eighteen months -- and indefinitely in your computer backup system -- constitutes an illegal system of firearms registration, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 926. The same is, in fact, true even for efforts to retain information about persons prohibited from purchasing firearms."
48. David B. Kopel, Policy Review 63 (Winter 1993):6.

And, if you are advocating violent overthrow of the government because it chooses to track guns and gun ownership, you have really lost it.  Cool down the rhetoric.  Nobody is coming to take your guns away.

YOU're doing it right now! In fact, you'd probably not only not protest, you'd turn people in who opposed letting the gov't take their guns, because you don't believe they have a right to them. You'd be calling them "absurd" and suggesting they smoke too much weed. Or so I can safely assume, if recent events are any indication of future eventualities.

Gosh, I must have slept through that part in history class.  I don't recall it being on the test either. You must think that Timothy McVeigh was some kind of martyr.

Why must I? Is that on the test your school(s) gave? Because it wasn't on mine.

Privately-owned cannon?  Just what we need.  A cannon on every front lawn in America.

Maybe not every lawn, but certainly a few yards could be so decorated with heavy artilery.

Do you realize how absurd your argument has become?

Not "absurd," but it is extreme, maybe even fanatical.

I honestly believe that Washington was right about the so-called citizen militia.  He despised them.  Most of the time, they were the first to run when they confronted a real military force.

That's why I favor an all volunteer army. The militia is supposed to be for defense of one's own back yard, which is supposed to be incentive to stick around and fight to the last breath. The Guard should be used to defend the several States, and combined to form armies to defend other States.
I oppose the draft.

The Minutemen were much overrated as a fighting force.  I doubt that even the Continental Army could have won the revolution without the help of regular French troops and the French navy.
 
You seem to forget the nature of our enemy, the world's mightiest superpower.

OK, but don't expect me to have the same respect for their opinions that you apparently do.

That's all I ask.

"Are guns dangerous, dad?" 

"No, son. People are." 

"Are guns dangerous, dad?" 

"No, son. People are." 

Should read, "No, son, I am."

...It all comes down to the person whose finger's on the trigger.

Yes.  I can agree with your thinking here.  But the question in this thread is much deeper of course.  I still have a 'lol' at the reason why this thread was raised in the first place... but I see the point... yet I 'lol'.