Options
2nd: The founders meant what they wrote about arms
69charger
Posts: 1,045
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=445858
By TOM MONCURE
Posted: July 1, 2006
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.
Sanford Levinson, a distinguished constitutional law professor, wrote in the Yale Law Journal that the Second Amendment suffers from a lack of serious scholarship.
Few law students envision the Second Amendment as an area of lucrative practice upon graduation. His article, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment," sent a shock wave through academia by suggesting that the amendment might actually mean what it says.
Issues involving guns have taken center stage in the cultural divide that separates red and blue America.
Gun control advocates point to the militia clause of the Second Amendment, arguing that it warrants a collective, rather than an individual, right to keep and bear arms.
However, history - buttressed by the founders' clear understanding - dictates that the amendment guarantees this right to individuals.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not dealt directly with the Second Amendment since 1939.
Then, United States vs. Miller held that a sawed-off shotgun was subject to registration because there was no evidence before the court that it had a military use. This opinion suggests that any demonstrably military weapon should enjoy the protection of the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court has conjured rights from the Constitution that do not exist in the text - while disparaging those rights contained in the document itself - leaving both sides of the gun debate cause for concern in any future rulings.
Oblique references in subsequent cases lend credibility to an individual rights interpretation.
The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted in a 1990 case, United States vs. Verdugo-Urquidez, that the use of "the people" in the Bill of Rights was used not to avoid an "awkward rhetorical redundancy," but rather was chosen as a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution."
He noted that the use of "the people" in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and 10th Amendments was within the context of protecting that class of persons who are part of the nation.
When adopted by the states, the Second Amendment generated no controversy. State and federal militia laws required citizens to keep arms and ammunition in their homes.
The greater concern, as articulated by the great orator Patrick Henry, was how to provide guns to those who could not afford them.
The bearing of arms was both a right and responsibility of citizenship, with arms being legally denied to those who were not citizens.
The very idea that citizens might be barred from militia membership was itself an indication of tyranny.
The original purpose of the entire Bill of Rights was to prevent federal intrusion into the fundamental liberties of the people. The collective-rights interpretation contends that the militia clause limits the scope of the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteeing only that states can maintain a National Guard.
The flaw of this interpretation is clear in the language of the Second Amendment, which secures the rights of the "people," and not the "states," to keep and bear arms.
The right to be armed for personal protection is well recognized by common law and preserved under the Ninth Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court reiterated, in the 2005 case of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, that government cannot be held liable for failure to protect the lives of its citizens. Personal self-defense remains an individual responsibility.
The Second Amendment serves two higher callings. On a practical level, armed citizens provided the ultimate security against enemies and tyrants.
On a philosophical level, the founders knew that our ultimate success depended on the character of the people.
George Mason wrote in the Virginia Declaration of Rights that "no free government, nor the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue."
Much is assured us by the Bill of Rights - but much is also expected of us.
Indeed, the American paragon is the Minuteman, typically represented as a yeoman farmer, who goes back to the plow when his martial duty is done.
The Second Amendment guarantees our sacred rights, but also reminds us of our solemn responsibilities.
Benjamin Franklin observed that "those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
The founders meant what they wrote - even if, as professor Levinson indicated, some today may find it "embarrassing."
By TOM MONCURE
Posted: July 1, 2006
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.
Sanford Levinson, a distinguished constitutional law professor, wrote in the Yale Law Journal that the Second Amendment suffers from a lack of serious scholarship.
Few law students envision the Second Amendment as an area of lucrative practice upon graduation. His article, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment," sent a shock wave through academia by suggesting that the amendment might actually mean what it says.
Issues involving guns have taken center stage in the cultural divide that separates red and blue America.
Gun control advocates point to the militia clause of the Second Amendment, arguing that it warrants a collective, rather than an individual, right to keep and bear arms.
However, history - buttressed by the founders' clear understanding - dictates that the amendment guarantees this right to individuals.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not dealt directly with the Second Amendment since 1939.
Then, United States vs. Miller held that a sawed-off shotgun was subject to registration because there was no evidence before the court that it had a military use. This opinion suggests that any demonstrably military weapon should enjoy the protection of the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court has conjured rights from the Constitution that do not exist in the text - while disparaging those rights contained in the document itself - leaving both sides of the gun debate cause for concern in any future rulings.
Oblique references in subsequent cases lend credibility to an individual rights interpretation.
The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted in a 1990 case, United States vs. Verdugo-Urquidez, that the use of "the people" in the Bill of Rights was used not to avoid an "awkward rhetorical redundancy," but rather was chosen as a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution."
He noted that the use of "the people" in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and 10th Amendments was within the context of protecting that class of persons who are part of the nation.
When adopted by the states, the Second Amendment generated no controversy. State and federal militia laws required citizens to keep arms and ammunition in their homes.
The greater concern, as articulated by the great orator Patrick Henry, was how to provide guns to those who could not afford them.
The bearing of arms was both a right and responsibility of citizenship, with arms being legally denied to those who were not citizens.
The very idea that citizens might be barred from militia membership was itself an indication of tyranny.
The original purpose of the entire Bill of Rights was to prevent federal intrusion into the fundamental liberties of the people. The collective-rights interpretation contends that the militia clause limits the scope of the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteeing only that states can maintain a National Guard.
The flaw of this interpretation is clear in the language of the Second Amendment, which secures the rights of the "people," and not the "states," to keep and bear arms.
The right to be armed for personal protection is well recognized by common law and preserved under the Ninth Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court reiterated, in the 2005 case of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, that government cannot be held liable for failure to protect the lives of its citizens. Personal self-defense remains an individual responsibility.
The Second Amendment serves two higher callings. On a practical level, armed citizens provided the ultimate security against enemies and tyrants.
On a philosophical level, the founders knew that our ultimate success depended on the character of the people.
George Mason wrote in the Virginia Declaration of Rights that "no free government, nor the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue."
Much is assured us by the Bill of Rights - but much is also expected of us.
Indeed, the American paragon is the Minuteman, typically represented as a yeoman farmer, who goes back to the plow when his martial duty is done.
The Second Amendment guarantees our sacred rights, but also reminds us of our solemn responsibilities.
Benjamin Franklin observed that "those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
The founders meant what they wrote - even if, as professor Levinson indicated, some today may find it "embarrassing."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
www.amnesty.org.uk
If general people were allowed to own those things, the 2nd Amendment would be valid. As it is, it's already been violated to the point of being meaningless.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
http://www.myspace.com/brain_of_c
It's meaningless to you. It means a lot to me and millions of other Americans.
Protection against a tyrannical government has never, and will never be an antiquated notion or concept.
It's thinking like yours that permits governments to start on their tyrannical paths.
I don't believe in just simply tossing my hands up and conceding.
It's not meaningless to me. I'm just saying that your shotgun, rifle or pistol will NOT protect you against the government with it's much more powerful weapons....those rifles would have offered a modicum of protection back when that document was written, however.
Don't you see, you've already tossed up your hands and conceded when you didn't demand the right to own tanks and missiles.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
What makes you think I didn't? Never tossed up my hands.
Then you're already defeated.
If you feel nothings worth fighting for and concede defeat becuase the task seems overwhelming to you, then you may as well just lie down and die, now.
Who said anything about the NRA?
Is it mandatory to be a member of the NRA, if one owns weapons?
Nonetheless, you are conceding defeat by conveying that perspective.
I certainly don't know you on a personal level, but you are promoting or conveying a defeatist mentality with your posts.
Maybe that says nothing about you as an individual. But why convey such a defeatist perspective?
This is a bullshit argument.
Remember, our military is made up of our friends and members of all our communities. Do you really think they'd kill us if there was a MASSIVE public revolt?
Besides, Americans are far better shots than the insurgency in Iraq. We aren't taught "spray and pray". For most hunters it's "one shot, one kill". I think we'd be very effective even against the military.
The reason why the 2nd ammendment is still relevant is because IF there is some type of public revolt, and we have to fight our own "missles, tanks, bombs, etc."...then having a gun gives us the opportunity...and a fighting chance...to take over and capture those "missles, tanks, bombs, etc." At least with a gun, you have a chance. Take away the guns and you have nothing.
A well organized group of indivduals could wreck havoc upon one tank, or one missle battery, etc. Can you shoot a jet down with a 9mm? No, you can't. But...you can acquire greater weaponry through force that is provided by a gun. That's the point.
Just...watch the movie Red Dawn.
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
It's working pretty well for the Iraqi insurgents.
Without the 2nd ammendment we'd have no ammendments left. The people who try to deny or rewrite the 2nd ammendment are the people who will be responsible for even more rapid erosions of the liberties we still enjoy.
Just out of curiosity, do you think we should then pull out of Iraq? Is it an unwinnable war?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I would LOVE to see an exit strategy. I didn't like going in without one, and I don't like that we're currently there without one. I have never been a proponent of this war. Is it unwillable? The way it is currently being prosecuted, yet it is. If the politician weren't running it, the military could "win" it in a few weeks, but I'm not sure to what end.
So then no matter how many guns the Iraqis acquired, they would still lose...making their guns useless?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Not sure how you got that out of my answer. Right now, the Iraqi's with guns are winning the war. We won every big conflict, and they offered no defense against Shock & Awe, but the protracted nature of the conflict, and the PR battle the gov't needs to wage on the homefront tells me we're losing the overall war. I guess I assumed you were asking if this war was winnable for us. We are losing this was just as we lost in Vietnam. Our military lost no individual battles in Vietnam, but we definitely lost that one.
Could the US military take over this country? Yes. But they know that they'd have Iraq x 1,000,000 in terms of pockets of insurgency and no way to secure all of the territories in the union. They would suffer large loss of military life, and would need to wipe out huge portions of our civilian population. If nobody had guns in this country the military could decide tomorrow that they wanted to take over, and they'd have to face a few rock throwing hippies, but otherwise find no formidable resistance.
You aren't suggesting that an unarmed populous is able to defend itself as adequately as an armed populous are you?
I'm saying that I don't think any amount of guns can protect us from our military....not here or in Iraq. The reason they don't go full out in Iraq, the way they could, is because they would lose what little support they still have and of course, they are milking this war for every penny they can. The reason they wouldn't go full out on the American citizens is because they have to have consumers. We don't need guns, we buy shit, all this shit that makes them rich. Guns are not needed.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You see everything as a product of the evils of capitalism. I see personal and nation/state interactions, and am not as optimistic as you are about man's nature. We're pretty far apart in the basic ways we view the world. So based on your worldview I understand your conclusion about guns. Since we don't even start from the same premise, my conclusion will be completely different (guns are needed), and I know there is zero chance we'll be able to influence one another's opinion on this one.
Ok...but I was pointing out how you said guns were working for the Iraqi insurgents, which I took to mean that you thought they could succeed in winning a war with our military by using firearms, etc. Then you said you thought we could win in Iraq, which I took to mean that you think we can succeed there no matter how many guns the insurgents acquire. I'm just a little confused as to how you say guns are working for them but then you admit they really wouldn't be relevent against our military power. Can or can not guns works against a military arsenal?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
If the Iraqis had no guns there would be no insurgency. We'd have marched in there, locked up any troublemakers, installed a government, trained their people, and marched back home.
Shock & Awe worked to topple the Hussein government and army. But because the people have access to firearms, we have been unable to turn the country over to the Iraqis and leave. The insurgents continue to battle, order has not been established. Guns are working against a military arsenal as long as the military continues to prosecute this war the way it has been and the way it was fought in Vietnam. If the military were allowed to do their thing without input from the politicians, or without considerations about balance of power and diplomacy issues, they could certainly mow everyone down, turn Iraq into a ghost town and leave. But that wouldn't accomplish any objective that I've heard.
Same with the US. If the military wanted to wipe out all of the citizens armed or not, it could. But that isn't usually the point of a coup or an overthrow. An armed populous creates a much more difficult task for the military. I really don't understand how it could be any other way.
More difficult or not, in the end guns would make no difference.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
dont ban guns, but be reasonable and ban concealed carry. thats just asking for trouble. this isnt fucking 1865. you dont need a six-shooter on your hip like john wayne to protect the good guys in the white hats from the outlaws. we pay policemen to protect us. they're overpaid for a reason. ask the cops what they think about concealed carry. they deal with the bad guys every day. your typical nra-member "shoot first ask questions later" cowboy doesnt. hes the type of guy who wants to walk into the local bar with a gun. i'd rather have cops take care of the bad guys. these cowboy wanna be motherfuckers can romanticize all they want but i say keep the guns away from them.
They make a lot of difference. Difference in cost (time, casualties, munitions/supplies), and difference in the surviving population. The cost difference changes the go/no-go equation.
Prolonging the inevitable?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Your conclusions aren't supported by the facts. Here are some facts about Right To Carry laws:
And I don't give a shit about what the police think about right to carry. If you think the police can protect you from violent crime, you're mistaken. They'll be there AFTER THE FACT to try to figure out what happened, but they're helpless before any crime is committed.
Perhaps, but it isn't inevitable if the cost is too high.
Costs wouldn't matter too much if they lost power.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
If I wanted some facts, I'd visit the NRA website. The people that protect us on the streets, not jeffbr, are against it because they realize that more guns equals more crime. You can give me all the "facts" and percentages fit your side of the argument. I side with the cops. You know what protects me from violent crime? Not walking around with a gun. I'm a whole lot more likely not to be shot (not to mention the people I'm driving with) if I don't point a gun at the hoodlum who wants to steal my car than if I point it at him. There's no need to be a hero over things material.
But it is a check against them amassing more power too quickly. So instead we have the situation where we're lulled into complacency while they continually erode our rights and liberties. As long as we stay awake and stay vigilant we can keep the government in check.