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.
If the sentence is interpreted the same way gun-controllers interpret the 2nd Amendment, it would restrict education only to those who are religious and moral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
That is not how gun-controllers interpret the 2nd amendment. Here is your passage:
"Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."
That is saying that schools and education should be encouraged because religion, morality and knowledge are necessary for the happiness mankind and for good government. IOW, it says a means (education and schools) justify an end (happiness and good government). Likewise ...
"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."
... says that the right to bear arms should not be infringed because that right is necessary for a militia and, thus, security of the state. That is, the means (bearing arms) justifies an end (militia to protect the state).
In the first one, the end goal is happiness and good government. In the second one, the end goal is security of the state, which is accomplished via a militia.
Which is exactly what gun-controllers are saying: The 2nd amendment pertains to maintaining a militia.
The standard liberal line when I was growing up was that the 2nd Amendment applied only to the National Guard, because they were the modern equivalent of a militia.
"Which is exactly what gun-controllers are saying: The 2nd amendment pertains to maintaining a militia."
And what you said:
"The standard liberal line when I was growing up was that the 2nd Amendment applied only to the National Guard, because they were the modern equivalent of a militia."
the second half "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means that this right is an individual right, since the courts have consistently ruled that when the constitution talks about the people, the mean the individual and not the state. it is this part that puts the teeth into the amendment, and makes creating the militia possible.
Having the right to Keep something is not the same as the right to Own something. A police officer having permission to keep his patrol vehicle at his home does not grant him ownership of said vehicle. If the intention of the 2nd Amendment was individual ownership it would have stated that specifically like it does in the 5th Amendment.
Now lets talk about the phrase "the people". Which does not imply individuals but a collective. How can we deduce this. Lets look at the 5th Amendment.
No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
Notice it uses the phrase No Person not The People. Why? because the 5th Amendment applies specifically to individuals and individual ownership. If this was the intention of the 2nd Amendment it would have said
"the right of each person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"Which is exactly what gun-controllers are saying: The 2nd amendment pertains to maintaining a militia."
And what you said:
"The standard liberal line when I was growing up was that the 2nd Amendment applied only to the National Guard, because they were the modern equivalent of a militia."
Are basically the same thing.
So then you must agree that the sentence from the Northwest Ordinance that I posted would restrict education to only the religious and moral? The construction of that sentence, and the 2nd Amendment are the same. If one implies a restriction, the other must too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW ordinance
Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
So then you must agree that the sentence from the Northwest Ordinance that I posted would restrict education to only the religious and moral?
Did you even read what I wrote? (post 31) It seems you didn't. It has nothing to do with RESTRICTING education of anyone, it has everything to do with the PURPOSE of education.
That is not how gun-controllers interpret the 2nd amendment. Here is your passage:
[Because] "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, [then] schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."
That is saying that schools and education should be encouraged because religion, morality and knowledge are necessary for the happiness mankind and for good government. IOW, it says a means (education and schools) justify an end (happiness and good government). Likewise ...
"[Because] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [then] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
... says that the right to bear arms should not be infringed because that right is necessary for a militia and, thus, security of the state. That is, the means (bearing arms) justifies an end (militia to protect the state).
In the first one, the end goal is happiness and good government. In the second one, the end goal is security of the state, which is accomplished via a militia.
Which is exactly what gun-controllers are saying: The 2nd amendment pertains to maintaining a militia.
Did you even read what I wrote? (post 31) It seems you didn't. It has nothing to do with RESTRICTING education of anyone, it has everything to do with the PURPOSE of education.
I read it, but it is contradictory to what you seem to say in post #42, namely that the 2nd Amendment restricts gun rights to the militia.
Again, we have two sentences of identical construction, but two different interpretations. In one case, a restriction is implied, but in the other case, no restriction is implied. This is really not that complicated.
If we only have the right to bear arms if we are part of a militia then perhaps under the first amendment we only have the right to freely assemble at a church, or are only allowed to have a religious press, or can only petition our government through the press, which is also the only way we are allowed to practice our right to free speech.
Or maybe the right to form a militia and the right to bear arms are both recognized by the second amendment.
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.
