2nd amendment: If the U.S. Constitution says one thing, and a court says another, which one should prevail? (middle east, extremist)

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Bulldawgfan

Roboteer, since everything is so clear to you I have one favor to ask you. Define well regulated militia in todays terms. Forget todays terms, define it as it applied when written.

You're focusing on the wrong thing. The 2nd Amendment doesn't mandate a militia. It only uses that as a reason to mandate the people's uninfringeable right to keep and bear arms.

As already explained...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," ----> The reason for the following mandate

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ----> The Constitutional mandate

Similar statements can be diagrammed in the exact same way, for example...

"A well-maintained automobile, being necessary to the safety of everyone on public roads," ----> The reason for the following mandate

"all automobiles must pass an annual safety inspection, before their registration will be renewed." ----> The legal mandate

The Founding Fathers were brilliant in recognizing that governments sometimes turn on their own people, there have in fact been numerous examples throughout history (even more recently, over 100 million people were executed by their own governments in the 20th century, alone - look up the technical term for that: "democide"), and they wished to prevent such.

Examples:

Stalin's gulags and executions killed 30-40 million people
Mau's China executed tens of millions of people
Hitler and the Nazis executed 6+ million
Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge regime executed millions of people
Etc.
Etc.

[normstad]

Originally Posted by Roboteer

How gracious of you to admit what most normal Americans (including the people who wrote and ratified it) already know.

The usual nonsense. The Constitution was written in ordinary, uncomplicated English in 1789, as were its later amendments, so that normal people could read it and know what the laws were. Enough schooling to read ordinary English was all the education they needed, to know what the Constitution said and meant.

Not until relatively recently did a plague of liberals flood in and start telling people they could NOT know what it meant, just by reading it. The liberals tried mightily to fool people into thinking they couldn't read it and know it themselves, despite being proficient in English and with ordinary experience and common sense. Suddenly they needed "experts" to tell them what the Constitution said. Such experts had to be liberals, of course.

Such hogwash was designed to trick people into believing the Constitution didn't mean what it clearly said, so that the liberals could start gathering votes to pass their unconstitutional agenda without the resistance that normal, educated people would have given them. Some of them are still pushing this preposterous line even today: You can't understand the Constitution by reading it, you need it explained by a liberal "expert". (Since conservative experts would simply report it meant what it obviously said, and that anyone who claimed otherwise was either lying or very confused.)

Then they went further, announcing that if a state or Federal govt made a law that conflicted with the Constitution, the problem was not that the law was itself illegal (aka "unconstitutional"), but that the Constitution wasn't being "interpreted" correctly. (TRANSLATION: People weren't believing the liberals' lies about that part of the Constitution). This silly deceit is still being practiced in some quarters.

All this underscores the need for judges and justices who form their opinions on what the laws is, primarily by reading the Constitution, and taking later-enacted laws with a LARGE grain of salt when they conflicted with the Constitution's clear language.

This gave rise to the question I asked in the OP. If the court says one thing but the Constitution clearly says something else, should we believe the normal people who point out that the Constitution means what it says whether other laws like it or not? Or should we believe the liberals who insist the Const didn't mean what it says, or somehow doesn't count and you need liberals to tell you it says something else?

Interpretation of the Constitution by SCOTUS has had both a liberal bent and a conservative bent. There are decisions the liberals are not happy with. Regardless, the Constitution is set up in a manner that lets SCOTUS be the arbitrator.

Are you glad that the Constitution can be amended?

[Roboteer]

Originally Posted by Roboteer

Here's the explanation, printed in this forum for the 368th time for yet another functional illiterate who neither reads the current thread nor understands the plain English of the Constitution. Or, more likely, is deliberately trying not to understand it.

Plus more printings to come, every time some desperate liberal fanatic trying to make up reasons to ignore the 2nd amendment, tries to pretend the 2nd isn't clear.

Note especially the analysis of the Militia clause. Please.

Originally Posted by Bulldawgfan

Roboteer, since everything is so clear to you I have one favor to ask you. Define well regulated militia in todays terms. Forget todays terms, define it as it applied when written.

(sigh)

For the 369th time....

------------------------------------------

Reproduced in full with written permission from the author (see below):

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

The Unabridged Second Amendment

by J.Neil Schulman

Author, Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns & Self Control Not Gun Control
Webmaster, The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock

The following is reprinted from the September 13, 1991 issue of Gun Week, and also appears under the title "The Text of The Second Amendment" in The Journal on Firearms and Public Policy, Summer 1992, Volume 4, Number 1.

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter on July 26, 1991:

I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

The text of the Second Amendment 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."

The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary.

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, ProfessorCopperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying " militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.

In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]

[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

[Schulman]: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]

[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

[Schulman]: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]

[Copperud:](3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

[Schulman]: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]

[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.

[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]

[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.

[Schulman:] If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]

[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

[Schulman:] As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate"- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]

[Copperud:] (1) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."


So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.


(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

[Pilot1]

The right to keep and bear arms is separate from Militia. However, the unorganized militia, by U.S. Code is all able bodied men over 17. So we are also covered there, as one MUST BE ARMED to be in the militia. "Regulated" means trained, and well equipped, not restricted.

[Bulldawgfan]

InformedConsent - I think I can focus and what ever I like. I asked for a personal definition of well regulated militia. That is what I want to hear the definition of.

Roboteer - I have read it, but thanx for the effort in the cut and paste. I simply wanted your definition of what was, then, ... a well regulated militia. And what a well regulated militia means today ... unless they are one in the same.

Relax gentlemen, I am a gun owner and I aint after your guns. Jesus. But, honstly, my father was murdered and have always thought that the umbrella that allows you, and me, ... both responsible gun owners, also provided shelter for those who murdered my dad.
If you ever wonder why people react harshly or abruptly to your posts, remember your reaction to my simple request. Damn.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Bulldawgfan

InformedConsent - I think I can focus and what ever I like.

Of course, you can. And the rest of us can recognize the fact that you're wrong.

[rstevens62]

Originally Posted by Bulldawgfan

InformedConsent - I think I can focus and what ever I like. I asked for a personal definition of well regulated militia. That is what I want to hear the definition of.

Roboteer - I have read it, but thanx for the effort in the cut and paste. I simply wanted your definition of what was, then, ... a well regulated militia. And what a well regulated militia means today ... unless they are one in the same.

Relax gentlemen, I am a gun owner and I aint after your guns. Jesus. But, honstly, my father was murdered and have always thought that the umbrella that allows you, and me, ... both responsible gun owners, also provided shelter for those who murdered my dad.
If you ever wonder why people react harshly or abruptly to your posts, remember your reaction to my simple request. Damn.

Unfortunately there is no way to ensure the people always have rights to own and use whatever the common weapons used in war at the time, AND ensure criminals are not taking advantage of this, in order for them to commit crimes or kill people.

Have to consider the bigger picture, yes, its sad and unfortunate that he was killed by criminals, but that should have no impact on the public at large having access to weapons, so they can fend off tyranny, safety was never guaranteed in the US, but liberty and freedom were.

[Floorist]

Originally Posted by rstevens62

Unfortunately there is no way to ensure the people always have rights to own and use whatever the common weapons used in war at the time, AND ensure criminals are not taking advantage of this, in order for them to commit crimes or kill people.

Have to consider the bigger picture, yes, its sad and unfortunate that he was killed by criminals, but that should have no impact on the public at large having access to weapons, so they can fend off tyranny, safety was never guaranteed in the US, but liberty and freedom were.

Yes and remember, the supreme court ruled that "the police have no obligation to protect anyone". They are mainly there to take reports of crime. Everyone has the responsibility to protect themselves and family. That is why states like mine allow everyone to protect themselves, their family, their property, neighbors, their family and their property with deadly force is WE deem it necessary. And we are protected by law from being sued.




JUNE 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm,

[Pilot1]

Originally Posted by Floorist

Yes and remember, the supreme court ruled that "the police have no obligation to protect anyone". They are mainly there to take reports of crime. Everyone has the responsibility to protect themselves and family. That is why states like mine allow everyone to protect themselves, their family, their property, neighbors, their family and their property with deadly force is WE deem it necessary. And we are protected by law from being sued.

Not only do they NOT have a duty to protect you, they can not even if they had that responsibility. Police can not anticipate crime, nor can they respond to crime immediately. So, even if you call them or someone else calls them they often arrive TOO LATE.

[Robert_J]

Originally Posted by normstad

Interpretation of the Constitution by SCOTUS has had both a liberal bent and a conservative bent. There are decisions the liberals are not happy with. Regardless, the Constitution is set up in a manner that lets SCOTUS be the arbitrator.

Are you glad that the Constitution can be amended?

Does the SCOTUS ever get anything wrong? Can decisions ever get a second look from current justices or is everything set in stone after a decision?