|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
 Posted - 08/30/2007 : 06:08:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You are part of the militia according to the original meaning of the word when written. Remember, the constitution is a contract between the people of America; one can not willy nilly decided a new meaning for the words of the contract and thus change the contract.
|
Wrong(IMHO), and right.
There is no contract. Calling it a contract implies that the government has a choice on whether to participate or not. It is a document that is suppossed to limit the power t the government.
AND
"willy nilly"..... I love it.
|
 |
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 06:29:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
You and others have this sentimental or idyllic nostalgia for the early American milita that day dreams of anarchic freebooters ready to topple the government at any level should it attempt to infringe rights. That's quaint and fun but not in line with reality.
|
| While I like the idea of any law-abiding, sane American owning a weapon should he/she desire to, I don't believe said right is constitutionally protected per the 2nd ammendment. Really, our society isn't structured in a way that the 2nd ammendment applies anymore. Either the ammendment's obsolete or the way our military, reserves and/or national guard are structured is unconstitutional. But the claim that the 2nd Ammendment was intended to protect the right of any law abiding American to have a fire arm outside of some structured military context is clearly false. But then, just because it's not a constitutionally protected right doesn't mean it must necessarily be illegal for Americans to own fire arms. |
Washingtons' untrained freebooters knocked off the English and the Hessians.... That was reality. Changes in the current reality of the structure of the government, staning army, and amendments do not matter. Changes in society, and the "willy nilly" desires of the people do not matter. Only the Constitution and it's amnednments matter. Changes in reality do not automaticaly change anything in the constitution. There is one way to change the constitution, and it is perscribed in it.
The Founding Fathers were not nieve to the fact that a standing army would be needed. However, they were as well informed thorugh their education that an armed nation is (should be) a free nation. That the tyranies imposed on a people by governments and their armies were not so easily carried out against an armed constituency.
The National Guard is something else, and actually not a seperate entity any longer. It was a sad day when the functioning heavy artillery left my local "National Guard" base, and the "Army National Guard" turned them from a functioning, fighting unit into a support unit for the standing army. In reality, the National Guard of old does not exist.
And, again, I submit with extreme prejudice to the point as it is the Federal Government legislating these definitions:
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
|
We have the definition of the militia, adjusted for discrimination now.
We also have the definition of the unorganized militia, which defines me (40 year old male) as a member.
Now I do not think I have to give up my firearms when I am 45, or 65, or 95. It is clear from the early views here at what the Founding Father's were talking about in regards to who the militia were, and their writngs point to the same fact, and to why they should be. For the government to limit this, however, to me at age 45 would be unconstitutional as the federal government cannot infringe on my right to keep and bear arms.
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 07:50:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Washingtons' untrained freebooters knocked off the English and the Hessians.... That was reality. |
Washington's army did not consist of untrained freebooters.
| Changes in the current reality of the structure of the government, staning army, and amendments do not matter. Changes in society, and the "willy nilly" desires of the people do not matter. Only the Constitution and it's amnednments matter. Changes in reality do not automaticaly change anything in the constitution. There is one way to change the constitution, and it is perscribed in it. |
In regards to the 2nd Ammendment, the right of the citizen to bear arms is only constitutionally protected for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia. The key is well regulated - if you haven't been mustered into a well-regulated militia, then you don't have a constitutional protection to own your weapon. This doesn't mean your weapon is unconstitutional or illegal nor does it mean my opinion is it should be.
| That the tyranies imposed on a people by governments and their armies were not so easily carried out against an armed constituency. |
The 2nd Ammendment was concerned specifically with the right of states to maintain their militias at least in part as a guarantee against the development of an oppressive Federal government enforced via the national standing army. It does not provide for every individual citizen to have a weapon in case they independantly decide any level of government has become too opprsessive and so a guerilla war is needed.
| The National Guard is something else, and actually not a seperate entity any longer. It was a sad day when the functioning heavy artillery left my local "National Guard" base, and the "Army National Guard" turned them from a functioning, fighting unit into a support unit for the standing army. In reality, the National Guard of old does not exist. |
Regarding the guard and state militias in general, this point has become moot I think. The idea that a state would militarily oppose the Federal government is more or less inconceivable these days. And I'm not aware of any states that exercise their rights to have independant militaries via militias. However, if one decided to, it's right to do so is protected via the constitution.
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
|
Is this an exerp from the Constitution? Can you post the link? It'd save me the time of looking it up myself.
| Now I do not think I have to give up my firearms when I am 45, or 65, or 95. |
The constitution doesn't require you to give up your fire arms, but it doesn't prohibit, IMHO, any law that requires you to either. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 09:51:14 [Permalink]
|
As a follow-up, I went ahead and looked up what the US Constitution says about militias:
From Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have power ...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
|
Note this is separate from the provision to raise an army.
From Article 2, Section 2:
| 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; |
Presumably the States maintain control when not serving the Federal government....
That's it for the main text. In the ammendments, militia is of course mentioned in Ammendment 2. It's also mentioned in Ammendment 5:
| No person shall be held to answer for any 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 or public danger |
I'm not sure where the text about militias Original Intent posted comes from. It's not in the Constitution - perhaps it's from the text of a law or regulation? In any case, reading the treatment given to militias in the Constitution it's difficult to conclude the Founding Fathers had in mind local military units with virtually autonomous officers doing pretty much whatever they want.
And assuming the Constitution uses a consistent definition for Militia throughout, then the 2nd Ammendment is certainly referring to a military unit under some level of government control and/or regulation; probably state level by the text in Articles 1 and 2. And likely Ammendment 2's specific mention of "for the purpose of a well regulated militia" is intended to ensure the provision didn't lead to a constitutional protection for unregulated armed mobs. That is they left the door open to make fire arms illegal for people not part of an 'official' militia. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 08/30/2007 09:59:37 |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 10:19:06 [Permalink]
|
CFR Section 10.
OK, first they left no door open THe constiturion gives the government the power to do what is in it. Hamilto always said the Bill of Rights was unneccessary, and dangerous, because it would allow the future governments to imagine that it gave them an in to pass laws in them. The Constitution has nothing about the ability of the government to regulate firearms amongst the citizens, therefore the government cannot do it. THe second amendment is a little icing, that the government has spoiled.
I really do wish I had more time for this at this moment in my life.........
| And that the said Constitution 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;…" Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789 quoting Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State by the Honorable Samuel Adams, Esquire. |
Jefferson:
The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States … Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America." Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789 |
Jefferson
No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. |
| As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the 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 in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution." Under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1. Coxe sent a copy of his essay to James Madison along with a letter of the same date. Madison wrote back and the quote follows. |
And on, and on, and on.....
It is quiet obvious that the people have this right. The constitution does not "live." Because something was difirent then, means nothing. THe COnstitution perscribes the way in which it can be changed, and has nothing in it about "or if the times change."
THe other interesting fact about this arguement, is writing to the contrary, from that same period, and by those same people, is almost non-existent.
I do not know how I got dragged into the wrong arguement here. It really has little to do with a "militia", and everything to do with you and I as individuals protecting ourselves. It has to do with your community and my community joining together agianst an army sicced on us by the federal government.
The second amendment is the most important ammendment, if one were to look at it from an amendment POV. It gives you and I the ability to protect the other ammendments.
Peace
Joe
| On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson |
edited to fix those darn quotes
|
| Edited by - Original_Intent on 09/02/2007 10:20:20 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 11:48:24 [Permalink]
|
It comes to this:
All humans have the right inherent in their existence to protect their own existence.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 04:53:03 [Permalink]
|
| The 2nd Ammendment has everything to do with milita - it explicitly says so. And the door to banning fire arms I was referring to is at any government level, not just the Federal. The point is the Constitution does not protect your right to bear arms outside of a militia organization. Therefore your city, county or state can ban them. Presumably the federal government can ban them too. And no number of quotes you post from papers and writings of individuals from the era can change what is explicitly written in the Constitution or provide justification for ignoring it. It is what it is. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/04/2007 : 06:26:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
The 2nd Ammendment has everything to do with milita - it explicitly says so. And the door to banning fire arms I was referring to is at any government level, not just the Federal. The point is the Constitution does not protect your right to bear arms outside of a militia organization. Therefore your city, county or state can ban them. Presumably the federal government can ban them too. And no number of quotes you post from papers and writings of individuals from the era can change what is explicitly written in the Constitution or provide justification for ignoring it. It is what it is.
|
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.
Unified defense (well regulated militia), needed to keep a population from state tyranny (security of free state), the freedom to carry weapons (to keep and bear arms), can not be outlawed (shall not be infringed).
Unified defense, needed to keep a population free from state tyranny, the freedom to carry weapons, can not be outlawed.
I think you are misunderstanding the language. The point is guns can not be outlawed. |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 07:59:14 [Permalink]
|
Jerome:
I think you are misunderstanding the language. The point is guns can not be outlawed. |
“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.”
So why did they bother to qualify the statement? Why did they even mention, “A well regulated Militia” if the intent was to not limit this right?
Historically, the language may have been exactly what they wanted to say, which made sense at the time. And perhaps things have changed. But I just don't see how you can just skip over everything before the first comma to get to the meaning that you would prefer.
Lets face it, the second amendment has not aged well. Perhaps the wording needs to be revisited and amended. Until that happens, it says what it says, including the part before the comma…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 08:27:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
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.
Unified defense (well regulated militia), needed to keep a population from state tyranny (security of free state), the freedom to carry weapons (to keep and bear arms), can not be outlawed (shall not be infringed).
Unified defense, needed to keep a population free from state tyranny, the freedom to carry weapons, can not be outlawed.
I think you are misunderstanding the language. The point is guns can not be outlawed.
|
Rewrite it all you want, you can't change what it is. As I quoted above, the text of the Constitution refers to militia several times and in all instances it's referred to as a government controlled military institution. The Second Amendment is a protection of the State's right to maintain their respective militias, which was seen as a guarantee of State power vs the Federal Government. There is no reason at all to believe said Amendment refers to a right for every individual to own a gun so said individual can fight the government should they decide they are overly oppressed.
Edited for spelling and clarity... |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 09/04/2007 11:34:30 |
|
|
|
Yojimbo99
New Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 12:25:56 [Permalink]
|
chabooli wrote: Rewrite it all you want, you can't change what it is. As I quoted above, the text of the Constitution refers to militia several times and in all instances it's referred to as a government controlled military institution. The Second Amendment is a protection of the State's right to maintain their respective militias, which was seen as a guarantee of State power vs the Federal Government. There is no reason at all to believe said Amendment refers to a right for every individual to own a gun so said individual can fight the government should they decide they are overly oppressed.
|
It is not that simple. The debate about the second amendment is agrued on both sides and has been ruled on in different times by different courts and still is open to different interpretation depending on who you ask.
Take the case of Parker v. District of Columbia which upholds the position of the individual right to bear arms.
Shelly Parker, et al. v. District of Columbia and Adrian M. Fenty (pending appeal as District of Columbia v. Heller), 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007), is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit became the first federal appeals court in the United States to strike down a gun control law for reasons based on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the second to interpret the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to bear arms. (The first was United States v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied (2001)).
|
As does the US v. Emerson case depnding on who you ask. So no, it is not all clear cut as you like to think it is.
For some further reading.
|
It's not so much wanting to die, but controlling that moment, choosing your own way. - GG Allin
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 14:11:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Yojimbo99
It is not that simple. The debate about the second amendment is agrued on both sides and has been ruled on in different times by different courts and still is open to different interpretation depending on who you ask.
Take the case of Parker v. District of Columbia which upholds the position of the individual right to bear arms.
Shelly Parker, et al. v. District of Columbia and Adrian M. Fenty (pending appeal as District of Columbia v. Heller), 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007), is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit became the first federal appeals court in the United States to strike down a gun control law for reasons based on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the second to interpret the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to bear arms. (The first was United States v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied (2001)).
|
As does the US v. Emerson case depnding on who you ask. So no, it is not all clear cut as you like to think it is.
For some further reading
|
What strikes me as astonishing is both those cases are very recent - I thought the personal gun interpretation went back to the 30s.... Hmmm, I may have to look it up.
Anyway, that aside, this isn't about how courts have interpreted the 2nd Amendment. At the heart, it's about my opinion. :) And I happen to believe my opinion is in line with the intent of the Amendment, regardless of how a court may rule. You know, these activist judges and all, ruling based on their partisan ideologies instead of what's in the constitution; this is a clear cut case of that. Anyone who interprets that ammendment as a protection for anyone to have a gun who wants one is delusional or has an agenda. Reading the constitution, how it talks about militias, it's pretty much common sense what the intent is.
But all in all, I happen to believe guns should be available to law abiding Americans, so in the end, I don't care much if the conservatives twist it that way. But that doesn't mean I won't argue the obvious. ;) |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 09/04/2007 14:16:52 |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 14:12:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
The 2nd Ammendment has everything to do with milita - it explicitly says so. And the door to banning fire arms I was referring to is at any government level, not just the Federal. The point is the Constitution does not protect your right to bear arms outside of a militia organization. Therefore your city, county or state can ban them. Presumably the federal government can ban them too. And no number of quotes you post from papers and writings of individuals from the era can change what is explicitly written in the Constitution or provide justification for ignoring it. It is what it is.
|
The Constitution In and Of Itself does not Give Said Power to the Federal Government over the RKBA. Therefore, the Federal Government cannot limit the people from owning said firearams. Even if the Second Amendment did not exist; as the Constitution gives the powers in the constitution, and no other powers, to the Fedral Government there ability to limit a persons ownership does not exisit.
Now whether the States can k]limit that is anoher story. After all, it is the States that were to hold the majority of the power anyway.
To all of you I reccomend: [url=http://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Primer-Authorities-Constitutional/dp/B0006QSTH4]This[/url].
If someone can show me a similar book that shows that the Founder's had a collectivist or limiting view on the matter (and their opinion is the only opinion that matters on it as far as interpretation), please let me know. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 14:16:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Original_Intent
If someone can show me a similar book that shows that the Founder's had a collectivist or limiting view on the matter (and their opinion is the only opinion that matters on it as far as interpretation), please let me know.
|
How about the Constitution? It's pretty clear on the subject. (see quotes above)  |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 14:18:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
Originally posted by Yojimbo99
It is not that simple. The debate about the second amendment is agrued on both sides and has been ruled on in different times by different courts and still is open to different interpretation depending on who you ask.
Take the case of Parker v. District of Columbia which upholds the position of the individual right to bear arms.
Shelly Parker, et al. v. District of Columbia and Adrian M. Fenty (pending appeal as District of Columbia v. Heller), 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007), is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit became the first federal appeals court in the United States to strike down a gun control law for reasons based on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the second to interpret the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to bear arms. (The first was United States v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied (2001)).
|
As does the US v. Emerson case depnding on who you ask. So no, it is not all clear cut as you like to think it is.
For some further reading
|
What strikes me as astonishing is both those cases are very recent - I thought the personal gun interpretation went back to the 30s.... Hmmm, I may have to look it up.
Anyway, that aside, this isn't about how courts have interpreted the 2nd Amendment. At the heart, it's about my opinion. :) And I happen to believe my opinion is in line with the intent of the Amendment, regardless of how a court may rule. You know, these activist judges and all, ruling based on their partisan ideologies instead of what's in the constitution; this is a clear cut case of that. Anyone who interprets that ammendment as a protection for anyone to have a gun who wants one is delusional or has an agenda.
Reading the constitution, how it talks about militias, it's pretty much common sense what the intent is.
But all in all, I happen to believe guns should be available to law abiding Americans, so in the end, I don't care much if the conservatives twist it that way. But that doesn't mean I won't argue the obvious. ;)
|
I am glad that you do not neccessarily follow what the courts think, as they like to think they are superior in so many ways. Read the book above.
Now, we could go on with what the militia is, and just who it is, and why it isn't really what it is but should be..... but....
The founders warned us about all the silly little things like ignoring our rights, or allowing others to look after us as oppossed to taking care of ourselves.....
Could you imagine compulsory training? That would be pretty funny..... |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Second Amendment
