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.
The only amendment, that is protected by its very wording, to never ever be altered or eliminated from the US Constitution.
People that do not understand law. Words mean everything in law, when they start yelling the 2nd amendment can be amended and the Supreme Court is now our creators, as GOD.
Shall not be infringed. Means just that. An Amendment would be an infringement, of individual rights.
What about the "well-regulated militia" part of 2A?
Is see from your post that the "Dazzle them with BS" phase in now underway.
Actually, a scholar associate of mine J.N. Schulman consulted with English Department professors at UCLA and confirmed the intent conveyed by the Founders, and confirmed in their speeches and writings of the time.
I know these things because I researched the subject matter, and came to the conclusion that my previously held opinion (that it didn't really mean the "people" etc.,) was wrong. I have since become a staunch advocate of the RKBA, partly due to my research on the violent fates of countless millions at the hands of tyrants. i concur with Jefferson that the biggest reason for the private ownership of arms was to DETER Tyranny in government. To DETER.
Didn't Bush try to detour the tyranny?
Didn't a bunch of Republicans come up to me and say, "Uh, if we don't do it over there, we'll hafta do it over here."
What about the "well-regulated militia" part of 2A?
It refers to the militia, which, different that the Armies and Navy, were constituted of all the citizens. Standing Armies in that era were not common, and were raised as required. "Regulated" in the language of that day ment
provisioned or tuned. A well-stocked larder would be referred to as a Well regulated larder, or clock that kept good time would be a well-regulated timepiece. It isn't (and you can confirm this from the Founders themselves in their speeches and writing of the time) a reference to the National Guard or the like under government control, i.e. Regulation as we think of it today.
As one who has worked in the administration of complex law, I have been taugh that in interpreting law, one should apply the intent of the crafters of such language. There are several sources from which such intent can be gained besides the actual language, such as Committee Meeting Minutes, Floor Debate, correspondence between legislators, speeches etc.
In every case, when a Founder wrote/spoke of what we know as the 2nd Amendment, it was in the form of an individual right held by the citizens. There was a fair amount of debate on the subject, and I challenge anyone to find any speech, document, floor debate transcript, anything from any Founder that inferred that it meant anything other than an individual right.
Words have meaning in laws, or there are no laws.
Shall not be infringed. By even the act of trying to amend the 2nd, be an infringement on that very right?
What does "shall not infringed" mean in a court of laws?
Your problem is your using false logic to create a false premise.
Article V was used to create the 2nd Ammendment and can be used to invalidate it.
Your stuck in a circular logic loop over this issue which immediately invalidates your argument.
I am always amused/enraged, when people started bandying about the "Interpreted" word. Laws, especially tne Constitution and Bill of Rights, were written in language to be understood by the commoner of the day. It isn't written in some foreign dialiect or code.
You give it the plain and simple reading intended by the Founders.
It is Found in the Bill of Rights (not Powers of the Executive Department, etc.,) and can only be interpreted, therefore, as a preservation of individual rights (which the Bill of RIGHTS is all about).
It is clear from the language ("Regulated", back in the day mean equipped or tuned, and Infringed is the most protective language found in BOR.
Embrace the RKBA for it is the ONLY true guarantor of freedom. All other's rely on the good graces of somebody else who, inevitably, WILL be armed. What are the chances that ALL of them will respect your disarmed "rights"? Ans: Historically, NONE!
In almost every string of words used in the English language there will be ambiguities in what it means. Take for instance the phrase: herein
In a sentence, The contractor agrees to the payment terms herein
Here's the ambiguity: does herein refer to the entire contract as written or within the payment clause the phrase is located within?
As for the Constitution: What makes the Constitution all powerful over us when it was written by We The People of the 1700s? Many legal academics (nope not CD posters) posit that the Constitution is followed because we choose to follow it. There is a famous argument that goes: The Constitution is accepted based on the belief that we are obligated to obey it, but that obligation to obey is founded on that acceptance of the Constitution. It's a circular logic.
As Thomas Jefferson once wrote: The earth belongs in usufruct to the living; the dead have neither powers nor rights over over it; one generation is to another as one independent nation to another.
It refers to the militia, which, different that the Armies and Navy, were constituted of all the citizens. Standing Armies in that era were not common, and were raised as required. "Regulated" in the language of that day ment
provisioned or tuned. A well-stocked larder would be referred to as a Well regulated larder, or clock that kept good time would be a well-regulated timepiece. It isn't (and you can confirm this from the Founders themselves in their speeches and writing of the time) a reference to the National Guard or the like under government control, i.e. Regulation as we think of it today.
As one who has worked in the administration of complex law, I have been taugh that in interpreting law, one should apply the intent of the crafters of such language. There are several sources from which such intent can be gained besides the actual language, such as Committee Meeting Minutes, Floor Debate, correspondence between legislators, speeches etc.
In every case, when a Founder wrote/spoke of what we know as the 2nd Amendment, it was in the form of an individual right held by the citizens. There was a fair amount of debate on the subject, and I challenge anyone to find any speech, document, floor debate transcript, anything from any Founder that inferred that it meant anything other than an individual right.
What you are describing is a persuasive authority, to look to intent, but that isn't the end all be all more than it is a part of a whole. Moreover, many of the papers written during the construction of the Constitution, while did display intent and theory, also served as a form of propaganda.
Quote:
Among the other defences to personal liberty should be mentioned the right of the people to keep and bear arms .... The alternative to a standing army is ‘a well-regulated militia,’ but this cannot exist unless the people are trained to bearing arms. How far it is in the power of the legislature to regulate this right, we shall not undertake to say, as happily there has been very little occasion to discuss that subject by the courts.
Thomas M. Cooley: General Principles on Constitutional Law
Quote:
[An] important limitation on the right being that it is limited to those weapons in common use at the time.
District of Columbia v. Heller
Quote:
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia-civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
United States v. Miller
Quote:
While the handgun may be the quintessential self-defense weapon, and the right to keep a handgun in the home should be closely protected, there is no absolute Second Amendment right to keep a handgun.
What about it? In that era (and there are quotes from various Founders), and the militia is all the adult citizens. I'll re-phrase in more-contemporary language
"A well-armed citizenry, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
This is how an English expert, familiar with language usage back then, and now, would phrase the 2nd Amendment to carry to same meaning in contemporary wording.
Regarding the bolded, to one extent you are right. A militia is all made up of adult citizens. Conversely, that doesn't mean that all adult citizens are members of the militia, so that theory is out the window.
As a point of fact, I too am a staunch proponent of the right to bear arms and have what many would consider an arsenal, having collected military grade weapons for over 40 years. 3 safes full. Some have Form 4s and 200.00 tax stamps. But I don't believe that a person should walk around the streets of New York city with an AR15 at port arms. I believe in reasonable restrictions as the SCOTUS has stated.
This thread was specifically started in defense of absolutely no restrictions of gun ownership on anybody, anywhere, at any time, for any reason. If one claims there are already restrictions in place and they agree with them, then restrictions are a valid argument concerning the 2nd. The only question is degree and whether it passes the reasonable test.
People here are claiming that no restrictions on a citizens right to own, possess and use firearms is permissible based on the wording of the second. I disagree with that conclusion and reading of the second.
What you are describing is a persuasive authority, to look to intent, but that isn't the end all be all more than it is a part of a whole. Moreover, many of the papers written during the construction of the Constitution, while did display intent and theory, also served as a form of propaganda.
Thomas M. Cooley: General Principles on Constitutional Law
District of Columbia v. Heller
United States v. Miller
Sutterfield v. City of Milwaukee
I disagree with your use of the word Propaganda. Many were pamphlets and speeches intended o state the case for Ratification, etc., but I wouldn't use the term propaganda, but in either case, whatever characterization you wish to use, Intent is Intent.
I am not in the least interested in Court Decisions, for they are, in the main, are incremental perversions of the actual underlying law.
I am reminded of the "experiment" everyone has done in school at one time or another. Everyone sits in a circle in the gym, and one person is given a short message verbally. That message is passed from person, to person, to person, and each time it loses a little meaning or gains meaning not in the original.
Court decisions are the same way. Incremental deviations from the expressed intent of the crafters of the original language.
I take my counsel from the Founders, not some jack-leg attorney in black robes, appointed for life with no accountability who has been brainwashed into thinking that the decision of the court before him is more important than the base "legislation". This is how we have gone from Trying Cases to Legislating from the Bench.
I speak always in reference to the original law, its crafters and their intent. All else, IMHO, is a nullity.
Regarding the bolded, to one extent you are right. A militia is all made up of adult citizens. Conversely, that doesn't mean that all adult citizens are members of the militia, so that theory is out the window.
As a point of fact, I too am a staunch proponent of the right to bear arms and have what many would consider an arsenal, having collected military grade weapons for over 40 years. 3 safes full. Some have Form 4s and 200.00 tax stamps. But I don't believe that a person should walk around the streets of New York city with an AR15 at port arms. I believe in reasonable restrictions as the SCOTUS has stated.
This thread was specifically started in defense of absolutely no restrictions of gun ownership on anybody, anywhere, at any time, for any reason. If one claims there are already restrictions in place and they agree with them, then restrictions are a valid argument concerning the 2nd. The only question is degree and whether it passes the reasonable test.
People here are claiming that no restrictions on a citizens right to own, possess and use firearms is permissible based on the wording of the second. I disagree with that conclusion and reading of the second.
That same professor indicated that the introductory phrase, had no actionable value, but merely an introduction.
For example, a phrase such as A well educated population being necessary to a vibrant economy, the right of the people to a public education through grade 12 shall not be infringed.
The introductory phrase in no way shape or manner restricts or dictates the nature of the education to Economics or only subject wit direct economic value. It is merely an introduction and the statements that follows, the action speech, stands on its own.
The only amendment, that is protected by its very wording, to never ever be altered or eliminated from the US Constitution.
People that do not understand law. Words mean everything in law, when they start yelling the 2nd amendment can be amended and the Supreme Court is now our creators, as GOD.
Shall not be infringed. Means just that. An Amendment would be an infringement, of individual rights.
Actually... they will "go around" it by making anyone who owns weapons mentally ill. THIS is the way they will subvert the right to own arms.
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.
