|
| Thread: The Structure and Content of the Second Amendment |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted October 19, 2005 02:51 PM |
|
|
What I think is that if you limit the thread in that way PM it will be a very short one. Not enough people are either knowledgeable enough or interested enough in legal and historical matters to make a decent stab at what the founding fathers meant and how that should be worked into modern society.
As for my post, it was in response to a point made by Wolfman in which I don't see anything of what you might call "on-topic" and the post wasn't exactly showing much evidence of seeing both extremes. It merely commented on the fact that one extreme is of no use. So if he does think that way perhaps he'd be kind enough to share it with the forum rather than comment on individual's posts - something likely to pull the thread further from it's original topic.
Then you might get the discussion you want.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 19, 2005 03:57 PM |
|
|
That's a good idea. Just for the record, Wolf and I have discussed this at length on the side during which he has clearly expressed dissatisfaction with arguments on both sides and their implications. And, whether regulation of weapons is either permitted under the Second Amendment (i.e. Wolf's post) and/or practicable in reality, is in fact at the heart of the debate here.
So how about it Wolf? Isn't it time you finally chimed in here with more analysis? Or have I already talked this issue into the ground and left no morsels for you to chew on?
(LOL)
If anyone has the time or inclination to read the Federalist Papers we might find some clues on what was meant by "militia" and "people." I'm just having trouble getting to it. This sounds like a job for one of our Marines -- how 'bout it, Gootch/Khayman? PH, I know you're not American, but you are clearly a scholar. Wanna take a stab here?
Svarog and others -- thanks for participating. Svarog, I think I owe you an e-mail -- sorry! I was in the middle of a real tornado of activity right around that time...
I have a question though. How come you start out by saying that the amendment obviously protects the right to bear arms, but then point out that regulation of them (as implied in the first part of the Amendment) constitutes infringment, which is prohibited in the second part? So in other words, is the right protected or not?
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2005 11:25 AM |
|
|
OK, so I've been in seclusion for quite a while now. But I've been lurking and it seems I always have something to say. Why this thread? Well, I've been a member of the NRA for 17 years....one of more than 4 million members. But my views and arguments are my own.
I turned 18 at the end of the Vietnam war. The military draft was a major issue at the time. And it had implications for me personally (I wouldn't have gone! I also turned down an appointment to West Point.). What's this have to do with the 2nd Amendent? Well, because something I've always wondered about was how did they justify the draft? How could they drag me out of my house and force me into the military?
US Constitution
Article XIII Section 1 states:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude......shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Isn't the draft "involuntary servitude"? Granted, this amendment was added specifically to outlaw slavery. But the point is closely related. If I had been drafted and failed to show up, they would have come to my house and led me away in handcuffs....to involuntarily serve. So how is this justified under the Constitution?
To paraphrase the 10th Amendment (Article X): If the Constitution does not specifically give the federal government the power to do something, then they can't do it.
I have to conclude that the Constitution somehow gives the feds the power to invoke the draft.
Article I: (which lists the powers of Congress)
Section 8
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia....
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia....
Article II (Presidential powers)
Section 2
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
Article V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War.....
Other than the 2nd amendment, these are the only places that "militia" appears in the Constitution. And neither the words "draft" nor "conscript" appear in the Constitution.
So within the restrictions of Article X, the draft must somehow be justified by one of the above sections. The two clauses from Article I mention the Militia only. Articles II & V mention the Militia as being separate from the standing Army/Navy.....with the restriction "while in actual service".
So what's the Militia? The only hint in the Constitution itself is the 2nd amendment in reference to "the people".
Back to the original question of how to justify drafting individual citizens against their will. The answer is that Congress can call up the militia, the President is Commander in Chief of that Militia, and the Militia itself is comprised of the individual citizens.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to call the Militia. It's up to Congress to create legislation for the actual implementation of that power. That implementation was enacted with the Militia Act of 1792. It referrences each and every free able-bodied white male citizen.....of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years. Note that this is from the *MILITIA* Act written shortly after the formation of this country. After multiple revisions, that same criteria is still used today, with the exception they don't have to be white. Reading the entire text of this act clearly shows the Militia refers to individual citizens who can be "called" into service. Furthermore, this act was enacted by the founding fathers using the language of their time. This is what justifies the draft.
When the FF debated and wrote the original Constitution, they had widely varying opinions. And they were highly skeptical and leery of a federal government and standing armies. The Constitution was in real danger of not being approved. They were concerned about individual freedoms. The ONLY way it could be approved was with some sort of guarantee of individual rights. Hence the Bill of Rights was added as the first ten amendments. The Bill of WHOSE Rights? Certainly not the rights of the government or a federally controlled military, when the entire purpose was to constrain the government. It was the rights of the people, the individual citizens. The first nine amendments provide rights to the people. The tenth is a blanket statement to help protect the first nine and limit the federal government.
Such a long post and I haven't even started my other arguments.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 20, 2005 05:24 PM |
|
|
binabik, this is an excellent point. When interpreting a phrase within a body of law, one of the "canons of construction," or rules of interpretation of the phrase, is to construe it in such a manner that it is consistent with the rest of the body of law. Looking to the manner in which the term Militia has been used throughout the Constitution is important and very helpful.
Later today I will point out why you might be reaching a different conclusion than I would based on your analysis though.
Specifically, look to the distinction between army/navy (which they apparently refer to as federal entities) and the Militia of the several states (not federal, but still constructs of state governments) --
More later.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
grendal
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2005 05:59 PM |
|
|
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
From this quote it is my opinion that a well regulated militia and the right of people to keep and bear arms is 2 separate expressions. In other words, the right of the people to keep and bear arms isnt meant to be included as a right of individuals to use these arms as a militia. I believe this right to individuals was intended for the use to protect a persons family and property. In the event that a threat was imminent to the security of a state, then the first part, "a well regulated militia" would apply.
This amendment i believe was created to prevent any abuse by a federal government (reflective of how America was ruled by the British monarchy). The militia to me isnt considered to be a federal army, but rather a state army. This militia would be used in case the state felt there was a security issue with respect to their individual rights as a collective state.
So in terms of what "arms" an individual has a right to bear, i believe the FF intended it to mean whatever weapons might be needed to protect a persons family or property from native americans, thieves, wildlife, etc etc. To to this day it doesnt mean AK 47s or chemical weapons or nukes.
When there is a percieved threat to the powers of a state, then the state would call on its militia and use whatever weapons it deems necessary to defend their state. To me it means Ak 47s, chemical weapons, nukes or whatever the state deems is necessary to prevent the loss of their power as a state. Militia is the people, and in this context, the state would regulate what weapons they could and couldnt use. To me that means the state would control the exrtaordinary weapons needed to defend itself . I guess back then this would refer to cannons and dynamite and things of this nature.
An example of this thinking can be explained in the Oklahoma bombing. Timothy McVie was part of a self proclaimed militia. (illegal because it isnt state regulated). He used massive explosives which also (in the context of the second amendment) is illegal. These types of weapons can only be used in defense of a states perceived loss of power by the state regulated militia. The individual would have no need of the weapon for protection of personal property or family.
In summary i believe a person has a right to bear enough arms to protect his family and property (simple conventional guns). The state has the right to use whatever they deem necessary to protect any loss of its power (any weapon including Ak 47s and even nukes if they deem it necessary).
____________
Life is full of frustrations, heroes should help release it!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 20, 2005 07:25 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 20 Oct 2005
|
Hmm . . .
So many seem to interpret it as empowering the people. I agree with this sentiment. So many people agree that it is yet another (along with so many others) means to stave the totality of control of a Federalist government. I agree with this sentiment as well. It is very appropriate and important that at least someone make honorable mention of Patrick Henry. (I strongly suspect Binabik knows him well) I believe it was he who said, "Liberty! Take that precious jewel and you may have everything else!" This was one of his arguments to the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. I believe it was also Thomas Jefferson who said, "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth." It is important that we understand the reasoning for the 2nd amendment and the others in the Bill of Rights:
They were added mainly because a lot of Americans believed in saying "get it in writing". The drafters of the original Constitution didn't spell out specific rights mainly because they didn't think it was necessary. The document defined the powers of Congress, and it was assumed that everything left over belonged to individuals and the states. But some states insisted that specific rights be spelled out as soon as possible after the Constitution was ratified. James Madison, at the urging of Thomas Jefferson, came up with a list of 19 amendments.
The debate of the 2nd amendment continues even today. It was written so vaguely that we don't know exactly if it meant arms for: defunct state militias, for personal use, or both.
But also some people agree that it was written before the fact. It was in fact written before the Kalashnikov assault rifle was created and proliferated on a global scale. I've personally worked and trained with Law enforcement officials, officers, and day to day groupies of the same mention. (These are grown men who are neither employed by or work in conjunction with the local law enforcement community) And I can tell you from my own personal and official experience that this aspect of every police community does in fact very conspicuously and intricately describe to great detail the nature, sale, and destructive impact that all weapons have on a community. In fact anyone living in the United States can go to their local Police station and visit, for themselves, the entire section of it devoted to this field of research. And yes, common tax dollars pay for such study, research, and development. Now it is vitally imperative that everyone understands this community of researchers connected to the police department does in fact detail/describe a very clear distinction between types/classifications of weapons. I've noticed how everyone seems fixated on the AK-47 in particular. This weapon is classified as an "assault" rifle. This weapon was made for one single purpose; to kill other human beings wearing up to, but not limited to, light body armor. All of its functions give it a wide variety of "lethal" functions. Lethal (in this context) means it is made to kill a person. Some weapons are designed for "less than lethal" force. Some of those include 9mm -type weapons. While they can still kill a person, they are much less capable of it because of their intrinsic design.
As I recall, hand-held rifles and pistols of the American Revolution carried a very high learning curve to use against an enemy opponent. This was even before Napoleonic tactics came about. (Which were used in the Mexican-American war and the beginning of the American Civil War) These tactics involved charging enmasse, shoulder to shoulder, and then rushing with a bayonet charge. It wasn't until the American Civil War that people started to realize their weapons were actually becoming effective at a whopping 100-200, and in some cases 300yds! They were now a more effective and efficient killing tool.
edit: Oh and Peacemaker, I find it very annoying your liberal use of the word "canon" in conjunction with our Constitution(or any other laws for that matter). I feel it implies a religious tone of some sort. The document was in fact written by men for a people; not by God or even a presupposed prophet. Talk like that only encourages roaming Mormons to feel empowered. (we certainly don't need anymore of that)
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 20, 2005 08:40 PM |
|
|
Consis --
Respectully speaking, given my experience I think you can usually safely assume that I know what I'm talking about and do not use legal terms loosely or incorrectly.
The phrase "canon of construction" is a widely used term of art in legal discourse which has no religious overtones whatsoever when used in this context. The phrase refers to a set of principles the Court applies when interpreting any body of legal language. Every court and tribunal in the U.S. has used it at one time or another when construing legal language, and it appears in most of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court for the past two hundred years.
Here's a brief description of the canons of construction that are commonly and consistently applied to settle disputes and resolve uncertainties in how to apply legal language:
The Constitution and statutes are to be applied based on the "plain meaning" (obvious intent) of the language. Words are to be assigned the commonly used definition unless expressly stated otherwise in the text, or unless they render a result that is absurd or apparently inconsistent with the framers' intent.
In the event the meaning of the language is not "plain" or may be interpreted in various ways, then the court must interpret the language using the following canons.
1. Terms and references within a given test are to be interpreted consistently, so as to give them the same meaning throughout the text.
2. If the meaning of the term or reference is clear in one section but unclear in another section, the interpretation in the clear section should be applied to the unclear section.
3. In the event of a conflict between two separate bodies of law generated within a given jurisdiction, the latter prevails.
4. The term "shall" is to be construed as mandatory. "May" is permissive.
5. When construing a text of law, the court should look to the legislative intent whenever evidence of the framer's intent is available (i.e. legislative history).
6. A text of law should be construed as to render a sensible, practical result.
7. A test of law is not to be applied retroactively unless it expressly states as much.
Those are the only ones that come to mind at the moment. But I'm sure others will come up in the proces of this discourse.
An example:
http://www.abanet.org/jd/ajc/calnewsletters/feb02/statutory.html
Here's an interesting (if somewhat dense) scholarly paper on the subject:
http://lawweb.usc.edu/cslp/papers/cslp-wp-028.pdf
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 20, 2005 10:02 PM |
|
|
In the vein of well-made points concerning the intent of the term"militia" made by Consis and others, and in the spirit of attempting to ascertain the Founders' intent, here's some quotes from the Founding Fathers and comparable notables expressing their concerns of the day (taken from Wikipedia):
Quote:
The documented debate in the House and Senate over the Second Amendment is sparse, especially when compared to debate over other articles of the Bill of Rights. For this reason, contemporaneous writings and speeches of the Founding Fathers are often referenced by those who would better understand the original intent and historical context of the Second Amendment. The following statements were made by various founding fathers prior to the adoption of the Second Amendment, two being during the 1789 debates over its adoption:
James Madison
James Madison is considered the "Father of the Constitution," and was the primary author of the Bill of Rights.
Quote:
To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for the common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation , the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments of the several kingdoms of Europe , which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
--James Madison, Federalist No. 46, 1788
George Mason
George Mason is considered the "Father of the Bill of Rights." Mason wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which detailed specific rights of citizens. He was later a leader of those who pressed for the addition of explicitly stated individual rights as part of the U.S. Constitution.
Quote:
[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually. . . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor. . . ."
--George Mason, Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
Quote:
"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state." -- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People,"
--George Mason, later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788
]
Thomas Jefferson
Quote:
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, June, 1776
Quote:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
Others
Quote:
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
--John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
Quote:
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
-- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
Quote:
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
--Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
Quote:
"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them."
--Tench Coxe, Delegate to Continental Congress, Oct. 21, 1787
Quote:
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
Quote:
"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
--Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
Quote:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
Quote:
"[A]rms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
--Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
Quote:
"The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people."
--Fisher Ames, Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789
Quote:
"Regular troops alone are equal to the exignencies of modern war, as well for defense as for offense.... No militia will ever acquire the habits necessary to resist regular force.... The Firmness requisite for the real business of fighting is only to be attained by a constant course of discipline and service. I have never been yet been witness to a single instance that would justify a different opinion."
-- George Washington, Letter to the President of Congress-September 15,1780
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 20, 2005 10:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If anyone has the time or inclination to read the Federalist Papers we might find some clues on what was meant by "militia" and "people." I'm just having trouble getting to it. This sounds like a job for one of our Marines -- how 'bout it, Gootch/Khayman? PH, I know you're not American, but you are clearly a scholar. Wanna take a stab here?
I'm afraid that the subject of laws interest me very little unlike your good self. Like Svarog I tend to be much more interested in what's practical than abiding by the dictates and whims of people 200 years ago and what they considered important. They certainly had their reasons for making those rights and ammendments but I personally think that if they have little or no relevance to modern society they should be debated an if necessary removed or altered.
Therefore what I think falls outside the boundary of what is to be discussed.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 20, 2005 10:27 PM |
|
|
Obviously . . .
Quote:
The phrase "canon of construction" is a widely used term of art in legal discourse which has no religious overtones whatsoever when used in this context. The phrase refers to a set of principles the Court applies when interpreting any body of legal language. Every court and tribunal in the U.S. has used it at one time or another when construing legal language, and it appears in most of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court for the past two hundred years.
Maybe that's one of the things that are wrong with our country! To say anything at all, when referencing American laws, is a ~canon of construction~ implies little room for change. It seemingly tells the reader that YOU WILL OBEY. I believe any government or system of rules must be principally open to changes! Perhaps we Americans have grown so distant from our inception that we've forgotten the need for a flexibility. No one knows what the future holds, and I say that inflexibility practically incites future rebellions that may not otherwise be necessary! I am a citizen of this country! And furthermore I do not agree with this old and inflexible approach. I believe laws such as the 2nd amendment must inevitably be able to fail themselves and remain standing to show their true significance to the common good of the people! The very instant that a law writes itself as "canon" immediately dooms itself with the blood sweat and tears not of foreign enemies but of its own people.
Those are my thoughts, and they aren't any better or worse than anyone else’s; merely of singularity in stature. And as an American-born citizen of this country, I take those thoughts and hold them dearest to my heart among the free sovereignty of my country. Our liberty mustn't be bound and gagged by the mistakes of a static historical context.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2005 10:39 PM |
|
|
PM, you beat me to the quotes. I have some more, but it serves no purpose posting them, as they are more of the same. But while digging through quotes, I found one I just can't resist (although off topic).
"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." Ben Franklin
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 20, 2005 10:48 PM |
|
|
Consis --
The canons are merely guidelines to interprest standing written legal texts, not actual "laws" in the same sense as statutes. And they are applied rather loosely to each individual case depending on the circumstances. Most of them are common sense approaches to help the adjudicators in the country apply the written laws in a consistent fashion to avoid arbitrariness. They do not prevent our legislators from promulgating or amending standing law. Rather, they are designed to avoid judges from interpreting complex legislation willy-nilly any way they feel like it.
If you look into it (i.e. google "canons of construction") your mind will probably be set at ease.
Also, if you would like, I will e-mail you some Supreme Court cases that use the canons in context so that you can see how they work. I'm confident this would further set your mind at ease.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 12:39 AM |
|
|
Whew --
Wolf warned me that this might be like trying to herd cats.... 
I will concede one thing upon reviewing the canons of construction. That is that modern day realities might lead one to conclude that interpreting the Second Amendment in light of them (compared to the realities of the day in which the Second Amendment was written) might lead to an "absurd result." Perhaps that's why so many of you keep wanting to return to this issue -- the common-sense canon that suggests one should not interpret a given text of law so as to lead to an "absurd result." Specifically, the idea that the terms "arms" and "militia" should be construed in the way they were intended in the day, since those terms wield significantly different meanings today.
Perhaps there's the launching point: First, what did they originally mean by "militia" given what was going on, and second, how should we interpret their intent given the drastic changes in circumstances since then?
Wolf, once again I call upon you to concisely state your premise concerning regulations and see if there can be some additional meaningful dialogue based on that premise. Don't leave me wagging in the wind on my own here, this was after all your idea. Make your case and let 'em take their shots. If there's substance to the shots then let's take a look at it. 
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 03:06 AM |
|
|
I agree with Consis and others that our laws should not remain static. But the Constitution was constructed to allow for change. It does not allow changes on whim, but requires strong support at the federal and state level. As such, it requires serious debate at multiple levels.
Currently there is not even close to enough support to remove it from the Constitution. There have been proposals in both the House and Senate to amend the Constitution. But, even among Democrats, support is lacking. I don't think requiring popular support for change is overly restrictive.
Back to PMs first post:
Quote:
Strong proponents of the Second Amendment assert that it absolutely and completely protects the rights of each and every American to possess any manner of firearms (s)he pleases without any restriction whatsoever
Can I assume the NRA is considered "strong proponents"? If so, they DO NOT apply the right to "each and every American". They allow for exceptions. As a matter of fact, they may be the biggest proponent for keeping guns away from criminals, mentally ill, etc.
Nor do they believe this right extends to "any manner of firearm"......well, maybe. It depends on your definition of firearm. I really don't know where they draw the line. But I've been reading their magazine and mailings for 17 years and I don't recall reading anything extending the right beyond small arms.
Quote:
However, if the whole point of protecting the right to "bear arms" is the ability to stand one’s own government down in the event of tyranny, and the government is in possession of nuclear and chemical arms, doesn’t it also stand to reason that in order to effectively resist a tyrannical government one would have to be able to bear arms of similar magnitude?
I don't believe we, the people, need to have weapons of similar magnitude. Using nukes probably means Armageddon (with no protection spells). So taking a step down, let's say a group of tyrants completely takes control of the government and entire military, but no WMDs. I think with the number of armed Americans, it's very likely they could stand up to the military.
Consider the current war in Iraq. Look at how many US military are getting killed by a small number of insurgents with mostly small arms and home-made explosives. Now imagine if the entire population in Iraq had small arms and used them against the US military. The military would be completely decimated. The entire population of Iraq is approximately half the number of Americans with guns. What it boils down to is who is more determined.
In other words, I don't think the amendment is antiquated in regards to protection against tyrants. An important point is that this was meant to be preventative. It's meant to cause anyone considering going against the will of the people to first measure the cost.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 21, 2005 03:08 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 21 Oct 2005
|
Bah . . .
I know the word has different meanings. But what the hell? You don't consider the fact that people all around the world know that word through the wonderful history of the catholic church. I guess we'll simply ignore that part of history and say it means something else while we now include it in our country's legal teachings. Fine, do as you and others please. But don't say I didn't warn you when more people start talking about American arrogance.
I've put a lot of thought into that accusation. Americans are indeed quite arrogant in my opinion. And simply because I am acutely aware of this through what so many folks have been trying to tell us, I now make it a conscious decision to try not to be such an arrogant American. And I think that's a good start. People say we need to listen to what they are saying and I agree. I happen to be a person and I respect those who listen to me.
Oh and you can call on Wolfman all you want, though I don't think he's plugged in to this little forum as much as you think. He seems to have found a place with a bunch of people who agree with him on a daily basis. Some might call it heaven and others hell. It's a lesson in life; that thing where you surround yourself with people who feed your ego. Everyone must learn it eventually.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 06:29 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh and you can call on Wolfman all you want, though I don't think he's plugged in to this little forum as much as you think. He seems to have found a place with a bunch of people who agree with him on a daily basis. Some might call it heaven and others hell. It's a lesson in life; that thing where you surround yourself with people who feed your ego. Everyone must learn it eventually.
Excuse me, Consis? That's about the rudest thing I think you've ever said on these forums. Where's your cushy, big softy response? I read these forums still, Consis, even if I don't post all the time.
I don't post all the time anymore because there's really only one or two people here that I respect anymore, all the rest have left. I havn't had any respect on these forums maybe ever, but finally I said to myself I didn't have to take that anymore and i could move on.
In my oh so humble opinion, HC, more specifically the Other Side, has been in a major slump for almost a year. This place is dying.
"He seems to have found a place with a bunch of people who agree with him on a daily basis. Some might call it heaven and others hell."
I havn't found the place, I created the place almost a year ago. I run a Call of Duty clan. That's where my time goes. You can visit my forums and website if you want. We don't talk politics there, because that's not what it's there for.
About the whole ego comment, is this your place? I never had the luxury of everyone agreeing with me or being very sympathetic to my position like you have.
I'm sorry PM for ruining this thread, I just felt this obnoxious comment needed to be addressed. I don't think anything I say will make much of a difference because of who it comes from. You are right, this is like herding cats.
If anyone want's to contact me about this or any other issues:
MSN - HC_Wolfman@hotmail.com
Teamspeak - 24.226.28.210:7055
Xfire - kaiseraff
____________
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 02:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
... because there's really only one or two people here that I respect anymore...
well that's the ruddest thing IVE ever heard!
(acccept of course if Im one of the 1 or 2 people you're reffering to!! )
sorry Wolf,
just trying to make light of a tense moment.
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 04:27 PM |
|
|
Good thing this ain't real life or there may be some
shooting going on here.
____________
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 04:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Good thing this ain't real life or there may be some
shooting going on here.
well if there was better gun control (or we changed the ammendment) we wouldn't have to worry about that now would we?
(see peace, trying to get it back on topic...kinda)
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 05:15 PM |
|
|
Getting back to intent of the FF...there was no intent
to allow people to settle arguments with guns, nor
participate in drive-by shootings or any other criminal
activity. If the free availability of guns aids and
abets the illegal and immoral use of them, then to me,
PM's argument that as long as criminals have them, she
wants hers to protect herself is rather weak.
To say it is people not guns that cause problems, well you might as well say its people not drugs who cause addiction, therefore, lets legalize drugs. When you make something available, people will use it. Drugs and guns will always be available, but lets face it, the gun
culture of America has been fostered by the this
ammendment, and it is a rather unique phenomena amongst the so called 1st world countries.
Whatever the intent of FF, isn't it necessary to examine
the present psychology of the US and say, is this what
freedom is supposed to be, living in the tyranny of fear
of violence that makes everyone want to huddle up in their fortified houses with their arsenal (slightly
exagerated for emphasis )..
|
| |
|
|
