re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
How can so many of you claim that a Constitution which has been in place in 220 years on a small part of the planet is a universal right? It was written by a prophet? It has survived this long but it will be eaten up by history as we progress as all constitutions etc. so more fruitful to discuss on a basis of what is forward looking. Forward looking is not accepting a society where people find it necessary to arm themselves IMO. A society where you do not allow people to do that is much more likely to evolve into that, as the pressure and drive towards solving the underlying problems is much bigger.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well the thing is if you start with private property then self defense follows otherwise you don't own yourself.

The right to own firearms is simply the modern instantiation of the universal right of free men to act self defense.

If you don't beleive in self defense or private property then of course you would think the 2nd amendment is dumb.

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

Also, there's the inalienable right to life, which sometimes requires defending oneself.

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

Well, but you are making a totally different argument than I countered in that thread. Arguing that "The right to own firearms is simply the modern instantiation of the universal right of free men to act self defense" makes a lot more sense than the people in that thread basically saying "it says so in the Constitution, so thus it is smart".

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems to suggest quite a bit more than "I have the right to a gun."

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

"A good sauce being necessary to the taste of a good pizza, the right of the People to grow and cook tomatoes shall not be infringed," does not imply that tomatoes should be grown and cooked only to make pizza sauce. This emphasis on the first clause of the 2nd Ammendment while totally ignoring the plain meaning of the second clause is baffling. How stupid are the drafters supposed to have been? Do you think that if they had really intended for arms to only be kept and borne by "a well regulated militia" that they couldn't have explicitly said so?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the members of well regulated militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The first clause is an example of why the People, who in every other instance in the constitution are recognized to mean citizens in general, shall not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed. The first clause cannot possibly change the plain meaning of "the People" in the second clause to mean some smaller subset of the People.

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems to suggest quite a bit more than "I have the right to a gun."

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, whatever the reasons for the amendment, the second part is very clear.

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

The Framers chose their words quite carefully. If they had meant the second clause to be independent of the first, it wouldn't have been a second clause. The second clause has no plain meaning without the first clause. Consider the following from the Constitution:

"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:"

The plain meaning of the sentence is not that "he shall take the following oath of affirmation," but rather that he shall do it before he enter on execution of his office. To ignore the first clause because the second clause is "plain" distorts what was intended in the language.

That said, the Framers also intended that the Constitution would elaborate general principles; they did not intend that their relating of those general principles to the circumstances of the 1780s should be the way that future generations should relate them. Again, considering the sentence I have cited, since it says "he," does that mean a woman is not entitled to be president?

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
Again, considering the sentence I have cited, since it says "he," does that mean a woman is not entitled to be president?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would be hilarious if Hillary somehow got elected and right before the oath, CJ Roberts was like: "Wops, looks like we can't do this because the Constitution says he."

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Framers chose their words quite carefully. If they had meant the second clause to be independent of the first, it wouldn't have been a second clause. The second clause has no plain meaning without the first clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come now. "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" has no plain meaning?

[ QUOTE ]
Consider the following from the Constitution:

"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:"

The plain meaning of the sentence is not that "he shall take the following oath of affirmation," but rather that he shall do it before he enter on execution of his office. To ignore the first clause because the second clause is "plain" distorts what was intended in the language.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is clearly not analogous. In this case, the second clause is clearly meaningless without the first, since it is the first that defines the subject of the second. In the 2nd Amendment, this is not the case at all. Every word of "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" has a plain meaning that can be easily understood by reference to contemporaneous documents penned by the very same authors and signers. In all such cases "the People" means the whole of the individual citizenry, "to keep" refers to individuals' privately owned arms, and said "arms" meant the full array of military weapons that could be carried by hand. The enumeration of one particular reason that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed cannot be construed to disparage other reasons that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and it most certainly cannot be construed to imply that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall be infringed, which is essentially what your argument boils down to.

[ QUOTE ]
That said, the Framers also intended that the Constitution would elaborate general principles;

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. One of those general principles being that a disarmed populace could not possibly remain free.

[ QUOTE ]
they did not intend that their relating of those general principles to the circumstances of the 1780s should be the way that future generations should relate them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Framers included a simple mechanism whereby the right of the People to keep and bear arms could be infringed. All that need be done is to amend the Constitution. I have yet to read such an amendment.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, considering the sentence I have cited, since it says "he," does that mean a woman is not entitled to be president?

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that the male pronoun is the proper grammatical term to use in the case of indefinite gender of the subject, this analogy seems specious at best.

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Framers chose their words quite carefully. If they had meant the second clause to be independent of the first, it wouldn't have been a second clause. The second clause has no plain meaning without the first clause. Consider the following from the Constitution:

"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:"

The plain meaning of the sentence is not that "he shall take the following oath of affirmation," but rather that he shall do it before he enter on execution of his office. To ignore the first clause because the second clause is "plain" distorts what was intended in the language.

That said, the Framers also intended that the Constitution would elaborate general principles; they did not intend that their relating of those general principles to the circumstances of the 1780s should be the way that future generations should relate them. Again, considering the sentence I have cited, since it says "he," does that mean a woman is not entitled to be president?

[/ QUOTE ]

1st, they screwed up the president/vp election system on the first try,

and 2nd, the right of self defense is totally consistent with american political philosophy. Having a disarmed populace or a populace not able to defend itself is the old feudalistic philosophy where the people, the subjects, belonged to the king.

Also, another way to think about it is that if all power flows from the people, as it does in american political philosophy, then how could the government possibly take the practical means of self defense from the people?

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

Just a couple quotes to add to this discussion.
[ QUOTE ]
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

[/ QUOTE ]
linky

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Framers chose their words quite carefully. If they had meant the second clause to be independent of the first, it wouldn't have been a second clause. The second clause has no plain meaning without the first clause. Consider the following from the Constitution:

"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:"

The plain meaning of the sentence is not that "he shall take the following oath of affirmation," but rather that he shall do it before he enter on execution of his office. To ignore the first clause because the second clause is "plain" distorts what was intended in the language.

That said, the Framers also intended that the Constitution would elaborate general principles; they did not intend that their relating of those general principles to the circumstances of the 1780s should be the way that future generations should relate them. Again, considering the sentence I have cited, since it says "he," does that mean a woman is not entitled to be president?

[/ QUOTE ]

The pizza sauce/right-to-grow-tomatoes example offered earlier in this thread by another poster is far more analogous, language-wise, to the Second Amendment than is the example you chose to offer. ("A good sauce being necessary to the taste of a good pizza, the right of the People to grow and cook tomatoes shall not be infringed,").

I'm really not trying to be funny; that is actually a good comparison and your example is not, based upon how the language is utilized.

Your example changes the conditions (and inserts the word "before") whereas the pizza sauce example does not. The pizza sauce/right-to-grow-tomatoes example closely mimics the construction of the 2nd Amendment.

According to the mode of interpretation you suggest, the People would have no right to grow tomatoes unless it was for the purpose of making sauce for use in pizza.

Recent D.C. Appeals Court: Restrictive Interpretation of 2nd Is Wrong
 

Key excerpt below (bolded parts referring to 2nd Amendment):


"A U.S. appeals court struck down a three-decade-old District of Columbia law that bans residents from keeping a handgun in their homes, saying the Constitution's Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms."

and further

"Lawyers for the District of Columbia, which banned residents from owning handguns in 1976 for public safety reasons, argued that the amendment guarantees the right to bear arms only for members of a militia. The appeals court rejected that argument in today's 2-1 ruling. ``There are too many instances of `bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense,'' Senior Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for himself and Judge Thomas Griffith. Judge Karen Henderson dissented, saying that because the capital district isn't a state, the Second Amendment doesn't apply to it."

Bloomberg

There is significant speculation that this may eventually lead to a U.S. Supreme Court case.

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

"'The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' has no plain meaning?"

It does. But that's not what the sentence says. You're only quoting half of it.

On "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:": The second clause is not clearly meaningless without the first. The first says when he shall take the oath. It is a dependent clause that elaborate the second clause. It is clear that the word "being" in the 2nd amendment is equivalent to the word "since" that we would use today. The 2nd amendment indicates that since a well-regulated militia is important, the right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to maintain that militia, should not be infringed. It doesn't eman that I should be abvle to have a machine gun to shoot at my neighbor if he cuts down my petunias.

And even if we grant that the meaning is as you elucidate, the words, which we both agree were carefully chosen by the Framers, wer not meant to mean the same thing today in regard to particulars as they may have meant in 1789. The Framers were well aware of contemporary political theory, in particular, that of John Locke. Locke one wrote a constituion for the Carolinas expressly provding that "every part thereof, shall be and remains the sacred and unalterable form and rule of government, for Caolina forever." As insurance he prohibited "all manner of comments and expositions."

But the Framers welcomed all manner of comments and expositions. Madison said so expressly in The Federealist #37:

"All new laws, though penned with the greatest technical skill and passed on the fullest and most mature deliberation, are considered as more or less obscure and equivocal, until their meaning be liquidated and ascertained by a series of particular discussions and adjudications."

My argument is that the Second Amendment maintains that the right of the people to form a well-regulated militia is essential and that, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to form that militia, shall not be infringed.


As for the "he," the Framers clearly did not intend for women to be able to hold office; they could not even vote. They were clearly not using the "he" as a grammatical shorthand, but rather because they intended the president should be male.

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

"According to the mode of interpretation you suggest, the People would have no right to grow tomatoes unless it was for the purpose of making sauce for use in pizza."

Correct. Otherwise, why put in the pizza clause?

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

"1st, they screwed up the president/vp election system on the first try"

I'm not sure if they screwed it up, or if they just didn't anticipate the development of political parties; when Adams/Jefferson happened in 1804, they realized what they originally wrote wouldn't work any more, so they had to rewrite it.

On ewonders what the Framers would have thought about the Second Amendment in light of life in the United States in 2007.

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
"According to the mode of interpretation you suggest, the People would have no right to grow tomatoes unless it was for the purpose of making sauce for use in pizza."

Correct. Otherwise, why put in the pizza clause?

[/ QUOTE ]


So...your position seems to be: that the enumeration of a principal rationale automatically excludes other rationales not listed...?

The listing of one rationale does not necessarily exclude other rationales - does it?

Allow me to offer another example, to which we will attempt to apply your theory:

"Bank robbery being dangerous to innocent bystanders, bank robbery shall be punished by a term of not less than 10 years nor greater than 30 years in prison".

Under your theory of interpretation, if bank robbery could somehow be rendered not dangerous to innocent bystanders, no penalty would be applied or allowed. That however does not take into account that bank robbery might still be punishable as it is also theft or larceny. Under your theory of interpretation, based upon the reading those two clauses, the only reason bank robbery is punishable is because it is dangerous to innocent bystanders.

Maybe the framers only wished to list one of the most important rationales, instead of attempting to provide an exhaustive list (providing a completely exhaustive list might have proved an impossible task; hence they chose only to list the foremost rationale).

How can you possibly rule that out? It appears that they listed one major rationale; not that they made an exhaustive or exclusive list. Why presume that that list is intended to be both exhaustive and exclusive?

The right to bear clause is written so that it can stand alone (in contrast with your prior example utilizing the word "before"). Prefacing with a rationale does not change the fact that the right to bear clause is written so that it can viably stand alone; nor does it change the fact that the framers referred to the right of the People (not the right of Militias) to keep and bear arms.

You seem to be a well-spoken, and probably well-read, fellow; yet I will guess that your personal feelings may be coloring your attempt to read the 2nd Amendment objectively. There is no way that the militia clause is central to the sentence; rather, the right to bear clause is central and dominant. The militia clause provides a reason or rationale; its role is that of support, not of primary focus. There is no reason to be convinced that without the militia clause, the right to bear clause would not exist. Given the tenor of the times, it would have made perfect sense to list as a principal rationale the necessity of having a militia (since it required the assistance of militias to have successfully thrown off the yoke of England). I'm afraid I don't see why you presume so strongly that the listing of that rationale must constitute an exhaustive listing of rationales.

Thank you for reading, and thanks for responding to my posts.

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
On ewonders what the Framers would have thought about the Second Amendment in light of life in the United States in 2007.

[/ QUOTE ]

what do you think about state constitutional gun protections and the trend toward open carry / concealed carry as well as the very latest trend of "don't have to retreat" laws which allow a homeowner or resident to shoot an intruder rather than place the burden on the law abiding citizen to run away (when their home is burglarized they don't have to run away they can just shoot the burglar.)

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
"According to the mode of interpretation you suggest, the People would have no right to grow tomatoes unless it was for the purpose of making sauce for use in pizza."

Correct. Otherwise, why put in the pizza clause?

[/ QUOTE ]


Some sisters disagree:

Second Admendment Sisters




In addition the militia 'clause' has an important history and meaning, especially to James Madison main author and instigator for the Bill of Rights. But first the simple aside that those individuals must first own firearms pervious to any formation of a militia, right? The firearms do not materialize out of thin air nor are they stored in some warehouse under lock and key of some governmental authority to be handed out piecemeal to citizens when needed. In fact that would be defeating one purpose (there are more of course) of the second amendment.

For elucidation on this matter see the Federalist Papers No. 46 written by James Madison. This section deals with the mode and interplay of state and federal government but in this context Madison makes persuasive arguments (towards the end of the section) for state militias and free-armed citizens, giving historical examples and illustrations from Europe. Madison, being almost as long-winded and prone to pile up clause after clause like John Stuart Mill, is not conducive to short quotes but I will supply one anyway:

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition [in the Federal Government], more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”

This was much in the thinking of the very author(s) of the bill of rights, which includes the famous second amendment and is perhaps the reason that a clause about state militias was included in the first place. Not as a limitation, but as an explanation.

But all the above is an aside; there are other and even more compelling reasons for free-armed citizens. I will let you elaborate those for me. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

-Zeno

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]

One wonders what the Framers would have thought about the Second Amendment in light of available weaponry in the United States in 2007.

[/ QUOTE ]

assuming that somehow the political view in the US was that the constitution was outdated, obsolete, and in need of replacement.

What would a modern constitution look like?

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the framers only wished to list one of the most important rationales, instead of attempting to provide an exhaustive list (providing a completely exhaustive list might have proved an impossible task; hence they chose only to list the foremost rationale).


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll ask a question I've asked before in threads about the second amendment. If we took an eraser to the constitution and deleted the first clause of the second amendment would anything be different (i.e. would you interpret the clause in a different way?) Would the clause have greater reach, less reach, or exactly the same?

If your answers are, as I suspect, that nothing would change --- could you show me other completely superfluous clauses in the Constitution?

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]


One wonders what the Framers would have thought about the Second Amendment in light of life in the United States in 2007.

[/ QUOTE ]


I submit the following:

A well protected household, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Or how about this combination:

A right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Or, how about this statement (call it pseudo-Jeffersonian):

Banning guns shows the same proclivities as those that would ban books.

Discuss.


-Zeno

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

I doubt it was intended as a limitation. There's little reason to assume the Framers felt a need for limiting possession of firearms. And good reasons for assuming they felt the need for encouraging possession. Such as the importance of the state militias.

I'm saying we should apply the words to today's world, not that of 1789. Which is exactly what the Framers expected we would do. That is, to consider not only the compelling reasons for free-armed citizens, but also compelling reasons to the contrary.

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
On ewonders what the Framers would have thought about the Second Amendment in light of life in the United States in 2007.

[/ QUOTE ]

They would think "wow, it's a good thing we included a way to amend the Constitution if people feel like it needs to be amended."

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

A good case can be made that the original understanding of the Second Amendment was neither an individual right of self-defense nor a collective right of the states, but rather a civic right that guaranteed that citizens would be able to keep and bear those arms needed to meet their legal obligation to participate in a well-regulated militia.

There is no other case in the Constitution where the Framers listed "one of the most important rationales." The Framers clearly believed that liberty without regulation was anarchy; and that an armed body of citizens unregulated by law was a mob, not a militia.

The militia statutes that each colony enacted show how the militias were a vital institution that were enmeshed in the everyday lives of most colonists. Failure to appear properly armed at a muster resulted in stiff penalties, and governments kept close tabs on the weapons citizens owned to meet this vital public obligation.

No, the mention of the militia at the beginning of the Second Amendment (though in a subordinate clause) shows how vital the militias were in the thought of the time and how the amendment was intended to concern itself with this vital institution. The first clause is not a rationale, not one of several rationales, for an individual to be able to keep arms as he saw fit, but rather a defining clause for the right to keep and bear arms within the obligation people had to participate in the militia.

That said, I don't really care much what the Framers intended for the world of 1789. Their standards of cruel and unusual punishment, for example, were, I'm sure, different from those most of us would hold today. As Edmund Randolph said, the Constitution focused on "essential principles which ought to be accomodated [sic] to times and events."

BTW, thanks for the kind words. You make excellent points in your posts in this thread.

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

Nobody's talking about banning. The Framers knew about mobs and their dangers.

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt it was intended as a limitation. There's little reason to assume the Framers felt a need for limiting possession of firearms. And good reasons for assuming they felt the need for encouraging possession. Such as the importance of the state militias.

I'm saying we should apply the words to today's world, not that of 1789. Which is exactly what the Framers expected we would do. That is, to consider not only the compelling reasons for free-armed citizens, but also compelling reasons to the contrary.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well said. So I will submit the following articles as amendments (or replacements) to the constitution:


Society being inheritably dangerous from those that abuse freedoms no matter how well regulated the government and subordinate authorities, and the right of free citizens to be secure in their property and protective of their families and neighbors, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



Because the government provides all needed security to its free Citizens, the possession of firearms shall not be a right among the people and shall be considered a privilege to be regulated by legislative authority.


Because the world is infested with morons, religious terrorists and fanatics, government goon squads, anti-Semites, racists in general, the terminally inept, the credulous, the ethical impure, and other assorted imbeciles, mountebanks and demagogues too numerous to elucidate, the right of the people to possess any firearm necessary for the security of a free citizens household shall not be infringed upon, ever.


I really like that last one. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

-Zeno

Added in edit (to be serious): The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Is the above an objectionable article to the constitution?

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

The ideal that Americans venerated was not the unrestrained liberty of the state of nature, but the ideal of well-regulated liberty. John Joachim Zubly, in The Law of Liberty, published in Philadelphia in 1775 said that "Well regulated liberty of individuals is the natural offspring of laws, which prudentially regulate the rights of whole communities." And that, by contrast, "all liberty which is not regulated by law, is a delusive phantom." Outside of a well-regulated society governed by the rule of law, liberty was licentiousness and anarchy.

By far the largest body of law in early America dealing with firearms was that dealing with militias. These were often lengthy statues enacted by the individual colonies and then revised by the states after they gained independence.

These regulations could be quite intrusive, allowing governments not only to keep track of who had firearms, but also requiring citizens to report to muster or face stiff penalties. The individual colonies used their broad police powers to regulate the non-military use of firearms in a variety of ways.

Regulations governing the storage of gunpowder were among the most common. States also prohibited the use of firearms on certain occasions and in certain locations. A 1786 statue, for example, forbade Boston residents from storing loaded firearms in any domestic dwelling. It empowered the town's fire wardens to confiscate weapons and impose stiff fines for violating this law.

Governments also retained the right to disarm groups deemd to be dangerous. In Pennsylvania, under the so-called "Test Acts," citizens who refused loyalty oaths were to be disarmed. Laws disarming groups such as slaves, freed blacks, Indians, and those of mixed-race ancestry were common.

There was a distinction between laws regulating civilian gun use and laws pertaining to bearing arms. The states enjoyed far greater authority over civilian gun use. The young James Madison once authored, when he was a legislator in Virgina, a "Bill for the Preservation of Deer," in which he proposed a stiff penalty for individuals who hunted out of season. It penalized people who "shall bear a gun out of his inclosed ground, unless whilst peforming military duty."

This language shows the difference in the way Madison viewed bearing a gun for personal use and for the common defense. The state clearly retained the right to regulate the use of firearms and differentiated between the level of restrictions that might be placed on bearing a gun for individual use and bearing arms.

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

Jefferson was well outside the mainstream on most constitutional matters in colonial and Revolutionary America. Jefferson did indeed agree with Cesare Beccaria's observation that laws prohibiting individuals from carrying firearms only worked to the benefit of criminals. Beccaria was the first modern theorist to argue that when firearms are outlawed, only outlaws will have firearms.

When Virginia was drafting a declaration of rights, Jefferson wanted it to say that "no free man shall be debarred the use of arms." This language was anathema to Jefferson's contemporaries. Jefferson then changed his proposal to "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements."

But neither draft was included in the Virgina Declaration of Rights. Instead the Declaration said:

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty, and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

None of the early state constitutions adopted language protecting an individual right to keep or carry arms for personal self-defense. All of the language concerning the right to bear arms centered around militias.

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the framers only wished to list one of the most important rationales, instead of attempting to provide an exhaustive list (providing a completely exhaustive list might have proved an impossible task; hence they chose only to list the foremost rationale).


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll ask a question I've asked before in threads about the second amendment. If we took an eraser to the constitution and deleted the first clause of the second amendment would anything be different (i.e. would you interpret the clause in a different way?) Would the clause have greater reach, less reach, or exactly the same?

If your answers are, as I suspect, that nothing would change --- could you show me other completely superfluous clauses in the Constitution?

[/ QUOTE ]

And I will ask you a question I have asked you before. I challenge you to find a single pre-20th century quote that refers to the 2A as anything but an individual right. Please find me 1 single quote. You have 2 centuries of quotes available to you (end of 1700s, 1800s). So if your hypothesis is correct then finding one single quote shouldn't be that hard.

Here is a video to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAQRaXkTjoI

I could write tons more but I really don't think the people that insist the 2A applies to individuals have a case. Just look at the versions of the 2A that were voted down. Also, there are just way too many quotes from our founding fathers that say the complete opposite.

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

-Thomas Jefferson

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the framers only wished to list one of the most important rationales, instead of attempting to provide an exhaustive list (providing a completely exhaustive list might have proved an impossible task; hence they chose only to list the foremost rationale).


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll ask a question I've asked before in threads about the second amendment. If we took an eraser to the constitution and deleted the first clause of the second amendment would anything be different (i.e. would you interpret the clause in a different way?) Would the clause have greater reach, less reach, or exactly the same?

If your answers are, as I suspect, that nothing would change --- could you show me other completely superfluous clauses in the Constitution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed I do believe nothing would change, and that the plain English meaning of the central clause would remain unaffected either way.

As for any supposed superfluity: I do not believe an explanatory effort is entirely superfluous. The authors of the Declaration of Independence saw fit to provide an explanation as to the causes that impelled them to the separation, but had they not so seen fit, nothing would have changed in the remainder of the document's meaning. Similarly, without the explanatory clause in the 2nd Amendment, nothing would change in the Amendment's meaning, excepting that a principal rationale would go unmentioned.

The second part of the Amendment would be very clear even on its own, and to me it does not make sense (or seem proper interpretation of the English language) to assign a fully pivotal importance to the subservient clause, for to do so would in effect elevate the subservient clause in importance over the central clause.

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
Because the world is infested with morons, religious terrorists and fanatics, government goon squads, anti-Semites, racists in general, the terminally inept, the credulous, the ethical impure, and other assorted imbeciles, mountebanks and demagogues too numerous to elucidate, the right of the people to possess any firearm necessary for the security of a free citizens household shall not be infringed upon, ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Statistically speaking you are something like 45x more likely to be murdered via genocide than in a "criminal" act. When it comes to reducing *total* murders gun control has failed to show any significant impacts. The CDC and the National Academy of Sciences currently both hold the position that gun laws to no impact overall crime rates. That may change over time as more information is available but it should be obvious that the "anti-crime" argument is not one that holds a lot of water. Heck Britains "gun crime" was lowest when criminals and the mentally insane could freely buy revolvers, rifles, and shotguns with literally no restrictions. Now that Britain's laws are the strictest in history violent crime is rising and so is gun crime. Heck, they recently banned "toy swords".

Now arguing the flip side of the coin..... Is this proof that gun laws are counterproductive and gun laws increase crime? No. The situation is far more complex than that and anyone that wants to have an inkling of a clue in this debate needs to read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Samurai-Mounti.../dp/0879757566

And anyone that wants to have an inkling of a clue about the history of the second amendment needs to buy this DVD:

http://www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com/

That should get you *started* in a long and tiresome journey.

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
In all such cases "the People" means the whole of the individual citizenry, "to keep" refers to individuals' privately owned arms, and said "arms" meant the full array of military weapons that could be carried by hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

That includes shoulder mounted missiles, right? And plastic explosives?

And they didn't say, "to keep and bear arms EXCEPT IN WHERE PROHIBITED BY LAW," so we should be able to take them everywhere?

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the framers only wished to list one of the most important rationales, instead of attempting to provide an exhaustive list (providing a completely exhaustive list might have proved an impossible task; hence they chose only to list the foremost rationale).


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll ask a question I've asked before in threads about the second amendment. If we took an eraser to the constitution and deleted the first clause of the second amendment would anything be different (i.e. would you interpret the clause in a different way?) Would the clause have greater reach, less reach, or exactly the same?

If your answers are, as I suspect, that nothing would change --- could you show me other completely superfluous clauses in the Constitution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed I do believe nothing would change, and that the plain English meaning of the central clause would remain unaffected either way.

As for any supposed superfluity: I do not believe an explanatory effort is entirely superfluous. The authors of the Declaration of Independence saw fit to provide an explanation as to the causes that impelled them to the separation, but had they not so seen fit, nothing would have changed in the remainder of the document's meaning. Similarly, without the explanatory clause in the 2nd Amendment, nothing would change in the Amendment's meaning, excepting that a principal rationale would go unmentioned.

The second part of the Amendment would be very clear even on its own, and to me it does not make sense (or seem proper interpretation of the English language) to assign a fully pivotal importance to the subservient clause, for to do so would in effect elevate the subservient clause in importance over the central clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something *might* change. In 1790 a "well regulated company" meant a company that was REQUIRED to admit any person that was willing to join. The word regulated did not mean the same thing 200 years ago as it meant today. If you watch that documentary the founding fathers were not only concerned with the individuals right to arms but the individuals right to train in formations. The founding fathers were very afraid of state controlled full-time standing armies. They were very adamant that everyone must be apart of the militia and not just "bought and paid for troops". There is a lot of history here. Again people who focus on the first clause need to read more history and not focus on word games.

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

How can you square the fact that you think deleting the clause would change nothing but you claim it to not be superfluous?

[ QUOTE ]
The authors of the Declaration of Independence saw fit to provide an explanation as to the causes that impelled them to the separation...

[/ QUOTE ]

The Declaration of Independence is a very different document than the Constitution with a very different purpose. That the Declaration of Independence does something is completely irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
The second part of the Amendment would be very clear even on its own, and to me it does not make sense (or seem proper interpretation of the English language) to assign a fully pivotal importance to the subservient clause, for to do so would in effect elevate the subservient clause in importance over the central clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, as a result of this belief, you assign no interpretive meaning at all to the first clause. The first clause provides no limitation at all on the second, it can be deleted and nothing would change at all, and yet you don't think it's superfluous.

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
And I will ask you a question I have asked you before. I challenge you to find a single pre-20th century quote that refers to the 2A as anything but an individual right. Please find me 1 single quote. You have 2 centuries of quotes available to you (end of 1700s, 1800s). So if your hypothesis is correct then finding one single quote shouldn't be that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that relevant to how we should interpret the constitution? I think a strong canon of constitutional construction is that each clause in the Constituion should have interpretive/binding value.

[ QUOTE ]
Just look at the versions of the 2A that were voted down

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Does that change the language that was chosen?

[ QUOTE ]
I could write tons more but I really don't think the people that insist the 2A applies to individuals have a case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just as I believe those who think the first clause could be erased with no change to the meaning of the Amendment have a case.

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think a strong canon of constitutional construction is that each clause in the Constituion should have interpretive/binding value.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah...... the old Gonzales "There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,"

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/gonzales-habeas/

Who cares about context or history? If we can read a sentence in multiple ways we can make the constitution mean whatever we want! </sarcasm>

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
How can you square the fact that you think deleting the clause would change nothing but you claim it to not be superfluous?

[ QUOTE ]
The authors of the Declaration of Independence saw fit to provide an explanation as to the causes that impelled them to the separation...

[/ QUOTE ]

The Declaration of Independence is a very different document than the Constitution with a very different purpose. That the Declaration of Independence does something is completely irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
The second part of the Amendment would be very clear even on its own, and to me it does not make sense (or seem proper interpretation of the English language) to assign a fully pivotal importance to the subservient clause, for to do so would in effect elevate the subservient clause in importance over the central clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, as a result of this belief, you assign no interpretive meaning at all to the first clause. The first clause provides no limitation at all on the second, it can be deleted and nothing would change at all, and yet you don't think it's superfluous.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is correct; I believe its purpose is that of an explanatory note, and not a limitation.

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think a strong canon of constitutional construction is that each clause in the Constituion should have interpretive/binding value.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah...... the old Gonzalas "There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,"

Who cares about context or history? If we can read a sentence in multiple ways we can make the constitution mean whatever we want! </sarcasm>

[/ QUOTE ]

Although the sentence of the 2nd Amendment is admittedly a bit odd (with the comma between clauses), the plainest and most natural way in which to read the English as it is written is to ascribe an explanatory rather than limiting role to the militia clause.

If the sentence were analyzed in a vacuum, so to speak, with no context or history at all: that would be the way to read it.

I must comment now in a manner in which I do not care for, but which strikes me as true and necessary to say: lawyers and judges are ruining the Constitution by ascribing and applying meanings to it which run contrary to plain meanings and to common sense. This is exemplified by several things: perversion of the 2nd Amendment, perversion of the Commerce Clause, and perversion of the taking of private property under eminent domain. The lawyers (and lawyerish judges), with their legal games and word plays, are destroying the U.S. Constitution and destroying the country in the process.

The one greatest political document ever written, upon which a great and unique government was based, has become so twisted in interpreted rulings and precedents that the goals of the founders have been kicked under the cart wheels and ridden over.

America was once the Land of the Free. Now it is...what? How special, how free, is America now compared to what it once was? The principle of Freedom was the first and foremost consideration at one time. Now it is maybe...10th on the list?

Re: re:2nd amend from el diaablos
 

It is clearly not an explanatory note. There is no other example in the Constitution of an explanatory note. It is clear that the militia was an important institution in colonial America, in light of the Framers' distrust of standing armies, and that the clause explains the context in which the right to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed.