re:2nd amend from el diaablos

[PLOlover]

[ 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.

[Skidoo]

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

[Arnfinn Madsen]

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".

[Dan.]

[ 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."

[FreeMarketeer]

"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.

[AlexM]

[ 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.

[andyfox]

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?

[slickpoppa]

[ 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."

[FreeMarketeer]

[ 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.

[PLOlover]

[ 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?