re:2nd amend from el diaablos

[John Kilduff]

[ 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.

[wacki]

[ 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.

[LinusKS]

[ 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?

[wacki]

[ 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.

[elwoodblues]

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.

[elwoodblues]

[ 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.

[wacki]

[ 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>

[John Kilduff]

[ 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.

[John Kilduff]

[ 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?

[andyfox]

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.