Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, if we are going to apply the "Founding Fathers in their day" interpretation of the Second Amendment, IMO we must apply the same yardstick to ALL the amendments in the Bill Of Rights, beginning with Freedom Of Speech. So, does the First Amendment apply to radio, the internet, texting, typewriters, faxes, etc.?
Again, I have no idea what you're talking about, as I'm not making the argument, or any argument for that matter, that the second amendment should be applied any certain way today. I have no agenda or motivation to push in this thread. In fact, I've made the very same argument you are making here in defense of the 2A.
I was merely attempting to have a civilized conversation about the Historical purpose of the 2A in the 18th century. My mistake, should have known better.
An anonymous letter threatening to behead elementary school children in three Rhode Island communities was received by police on Tuesday resulting in police protection at every school through Friday.
Are we safe from terrorism on the streets of the U.S.?
What's this have to do with anything? nowhere did I make the argument that you shouldn't be able to carry a gun and defend yourself. I think it's only common sense to have people be armed if they want to be for defense.
Not every historical inquiry about the 2A is an indictment of the amendment.
This post is specifically about the "bearing" of arms, not the "keeping" of arms...
This has been discussed ad nauseum ad infinitum.
Nothing fundamental has changed.
The bearing of arms refers to personal weapons, not crew-served weapons or weapon platforms.
You get a rifle, not a cannon.
Fast-forward to 2014: You get a rifle, not an M109 Howitzer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
Truth is, I'm not so sure the founders intended a Constitutional Right to carry around a firearm in daily life for personal self defense. That's not to say I'm against it, it's just to say that I don't think that is what the founders intended when they drafted the Second Amendment, and to say otherwise is to betray the true focus of the 2A.
Why would I ever care what you think, when I can read what the Framers thought?
For those who don't know --- and apparently there are many --- the Constitution was created by committees.
Committees were formed and elected chairpersons, and the committees each focused on a section of the Constitution. The men kept diaries, journals, and personal notes. They exchanged letters between other members of their committee, plus other committees.
I don't give a rat's ass what the Supreme Court has to say about the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Read what Morris and the other committee members wrote. It's crystal clear the ICC was intended to be a measure of last resort, used when conflict arose between two or more States and when there were no other remedies available -- a presumption that the federal court system had been exhausted, or when there was a likelihood of repeated future occurrences.
So this business that Social Security and minimum wage etc etc etc are Interstate Commerce is total bull-****.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
Today in the 21st Century, we view the 2A in the context of being about personal self-defense from home invaders, rapists, etc, and that is also what the Supreme Court has incorrectly said the core of the 2A is all about. I've said many times on here that I view the Heller decision as flawed, because it completely re-defined the purpose of the 2A. The 2A had a much larger purpose than defending yourself from purse snatchers or street thugs. While it's true the amendment WAS about self-defense, it was about defense on a much larger scale. It was about defending State and Country from the throe's of tyranny from any enemy, foreign or Domestic.
Self-Defense is what it is....there are no "degrees of Self-Defense."
A home-invasion by thugs is no less egregious than foreign troops forcing their way into your home.
Self-Defense is inherent and innate to the Human Condition.
You may choose to defend yourself; you may also choose not to defend yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
Now if you don't agree, then consider this; the 2A as we know it today was not the original draft presented to the States for ratification, there was another clause. Here was the original 2A:
"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, but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
Now in the context of the original draft, "bearing arms" sounds a lot less like "carrying arms" and seems to refer to using arms in battle, does it not?
To Bear: to carry as a burden
Source: A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN WHICH The WORDS are deduced from their ORIGINALS, Explained in their Different Meanings, AND Authorised by the NAMES of the WRITERS in whose WORKS they are found. Abstracted from the Folio Edition by the AUTHOR SAMUEL JOHNSON, AM. To WHICH are PREFIXED, a GRAMMAR of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, and The PREFACE to the Folio Edition, 10th Edition, London, 1785.
There is no dispute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
HOWEVER...... The SCOTUS reinvented the meaning of the 2A in 2008 with the Heller decision and made it more about personal self-defense.
Yes, and the Supreme Court also said that the 4th Amendment did not apply to telephone wire-taps.
That only proves that the Supreme Court is incredibly fallible.
Look, this is real simple, but everyone goes out of their way to make it incredibly complex.
The Constitution is never to be interpreted.
What is to be interpreted is the law in light of the Constitution.
The idiots constantly try to re-write the Constitution to fit the law --- that is bass-ackwards. You write the law to fit the Constitution.
The bearing of arms refers to personal weapons, not crew-served weapons or weapon platforms.
You get a rifle, not a cannon.
Fast-forward to 2014: You get a rifle, not an M109 Howitzer.
Why would I ever care what you think, when I can read what the Framers thought?
For those who don't know --- and apparently there are many --- the Constitution was created by committees.
Committees were formed and elected chairpersons, and the committees each focused on a section of the Constitution. The men kept diaries, journals, and personal notes. They exchanged letters between other members of their committee, plus other committees.
I don't give a rat's ass what the Supreme Court has to say about the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Read what Morris and the other committee members wrote. It's crystal clear the ICC was intended to be a measure of last resort, used when conflict arose between two or more States and when there were no other remedies available -- a presumption that the federal court system had been exhausted, or when there was a likelihood of repeated future occurrences.
So this business that Social Security and minimum wage etc etc etc are Interstate Commerce is total bull-****.
Self-Defense is what it is....there are no "degrees of Self-Defense."
A home-invasion by thugs is no less egregious than foreign troops forcing their way into your home.
Self-Defense is inherent and innate to the Human Condition.
You may choose to defend yourself; you may also choose not to defend yourself.
To Bear: to carry as a burden
Source: A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN WHICH The WORDS are deduced from their ORIGINALS, Explained in their Different Meanings, AND Authorised by the NAMES of the WRITERS in whose WORKS they are found. Abstracted from the Folio Edition by the AUTHOR SAMUEL JOHNSON, AM. To WHICH are PREFIXED, a GRAMMAR of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, and The PREFACE to the Folio Edition, 10th Edition, London, 1785.
There is no dispute.
Yes, and the Supreme Court also said that the 4th Amendment did not apply to telephone wire-taps.
That only proves that the Supreme Court is incredibly fallible.
Look, this is real simple, but everyone goes out of their way to make it incredibly complex.
The Constitution is never to be interpreted.
What is to be interpreted is the law in light of the Constitution.
The idiots constantly try to re-write the Constitution to fit the law --- that is bass-ackwards. You write the law to fit the Constitution.
Again, I have no idea what you're talking about, as I'm not making the argument, or any argument for that matter, that the second amendment should be applied any certain way today. I have no agenda or motivation to push in this thread. In fact, I've made the very same argument you are making here in defense of the 2A.
I was merely attempting to have a civilized conversation about the Historical purpose of the 2A in the 18th century. My mistake, should have known better.
Should have posted this in the History forum.
I am amazed that you can't see it. It is SO obvious!
IF we are to look at the Second Amendment in the light of what the Founding Fathers meant at the time, then we must also, IMO, look at ALL the Amendments commonly known as The Bill Of Rights in the same light, i.e. what was KNOWN and MEANT at the time the Bill was written.
While society may consider your interpretation to be correct, you are not put on trial by society, but the courts.
The courts are a prosecutor armed with facts/clues and a judge to oversee the procedings.
By your statement, one is put on trial by society.
Society is we, the people.
Your assertion should be... one is put on trial by an authoritarian figure of sorts, most likely a local government, if not state or federal.
Society is the 12 jurors who judge the guilt of one on trial.
I am amazed that you can't see it. It is SO obvious!
IF we are to look at the Second Amendment in the light of what the Founding Fathers meant at the time, then we must also, IMO, look at ALL the Amendments commonly known as The Bill Of Rights in the same light, i.e. what was KNOWN and MEANT at the time the Bill was written.
That's all well and good, but the problem with it is you are forming a response to an argument that doesn't exist.... that isn't being made, least of all by me. I'm not saying we should apply the 2A in the light of what the founders saw it, I am merely trying to understand it's application from a historical perspective.
To elaborate further, I am in agreement with you on all counts here. There is nothing that exists now, that didn't exist in the time of the founders. TV, radio, the internet etc. didn't exist in the 1700's, but speech did, and that's exactly what the founders saw fit to protect.... speech and the press. TV, radio, the internet etc are just new mediums in which speech can be expressed. Telephones didn't exist in the time of the founders, but they are possessions, and the founders saw fit to protect citizens so that they are secure in their possessions from unreasonable search and seizure. That's another aspect in which the SCOTUS got it wrong with their early rulings on wiretapping. AR15's and the like also did not exist, but they are a form of arms, and likewise are protected.
My whole point in this thread, is to attempt to understand the scope of the 2A in the era in which it was drafted.
Is it a thought provoking dialogue you're after, or an argument? I'm done explaining the obvious to people who are one-sighted.
The last word you'll hear from a gun grabber is "we don't want to take your guns" as they take your guns.
Apparently there's a lot of people on here who don't pay attention to the user handles of the posters in this forum. If you were familiar with my posts, you'd know I'm anything but a gun grabber or anti-gun. To answer your question, it's thought provoking dialogue I'm seeking, not an argument. I'm not trying to push an agenda, further a policy, promote an ideology, or anything else you might want to call it. I'm very pro-gun, pro-self defense, etc.
I think it makes all the sense in the world for people to arm themselves for defensive purposes in their every day lives if they so desire. All I am attempting to discuss, is whether or not the scope of the 2A was actually intended to enumerate that right or not.
To break it down for you, I have no problem with people carrying guns, I'm just not so sure that the 2A was intended to give you a Constitutional "Right" to do that.. I could be wrong, and I'd very much appreciate your perspective on it if you believe the founders did indeed intend to enumerate a Right to carry.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
