I favour a small efficient government

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously."

[/ QUOTE ]

It is those who ignore the militia clause who believe that what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought we arrived at an agreement last time on this;-)...?

While we did differ on whether or not the militia clause is the most important or hinging part of the amendment (I hold that it is merely supportive rather than pivotal, whereas you hold that it is more or less the hinging focal point)...I thought we reached an agreement that even under your interpretation, the Amendment forbade the infringement of bearing rights, specifically BECAUSE of the militia clause. Since we are all considered to be part of the militia, our rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--exactly as per Andy Fox's interpretation of the rationale for the Amendment.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
"what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously."

It is those who ignore the militia clause who believe that what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.

1. Though some of our civil rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, are recognized in the Bill of Rights, they nevertheless exist independently and may not properly be infringed, even if the entire Bill of Rights were repealed.

2. The right to keep and bear arms is also recognized by the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

3. In any case, the militia clause in the second amendment was added to emphasize that the RKBA is a paticularly important right for the people to retain to enable them to resist not only foreign agression, but also tyranny in their own government. Thus, it makes zero sense to suppose it authorizes the government to form a government controlled standing army. This interpretation is apparent by reading Federalist #29, authored by Hamilton: [Added emphasis mine]

"By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
whoa, only an armed people can truely be free???? Ghandi wasnt armed and neither was Martin luther King Jr.

[/ QUOTE ]

We posses certain inalienable rights, which include the right to keep and bear arms. A free society is defined by whether those rights are recognized by the government. That those particular individuals you mention did not exercise certain particular rights could not be more irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact of the matter is that many types of guns a designed for the sole purpose of killing human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please be specific about which features of which types of guns makes them more lethal.

And even if that's true -- so what? Increased lethality means they are better served for self-defense. The guns I own are indeed designed to kill human beings (though not any more so than all other guns), and I do not hunt. That's what makes them useful to me, and why I own them.

[ QUOTE ]
Handguns in particular fall into this category. Rifles to hunt with are one thing, but tech 9 machine pistols are another.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, exactly, is a "machine pistol?" Methinks you have no idea what you are talking about.

[ QUOTE ]
how are special purpose people killers needed when a rifle could defend liberty all the same????

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, please be specific about which features of which guns make them "special purpose people killers."

I ask partly because if you are correct that certain guns are particularly lethal, I'm going to add them to my collection. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[MMMMMM]

Excellent post, bluebassman.

I greatly doubt that even the great Andy Fox can find a way to refute the points you have just made.

And to those others who may disagree with the sentiment or conclusion: can you actually rebut this line of reasoning? These points seem to make crystal clear what was intended--and stated--by the 2nd Amendment (and the Ninth).

Even if Andy were STILL to argue contrary to Hamilton's clear words in Federalist 29, Andy still wouldn't be able to get around the 9th Amendment, as such: the enumeration of the right of the people to keep and bear arms *for the purpose of having a militia only* (according to Andy), SHALL NOT be construed to deny or disparage the right of the people to keep and bear arms for other purposes as well.

As far as I'm concerned this definitely looks like a "Q.E.D.". Can anyone show why it isn't?

[ QUOTE ]
1. Though some of our civil rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, are recognized in the Bill of Rights, they nevertheless exist independently and may not properly be infringed, even if the entire Bill of Rights were repealed.

2. The right to keep and bear arms is also recognized by the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

3. In any case, the militia clause in the second amendment was added to emphasize that the RKBA is a paticularly important right for the people to retain to enable them to resist not only foreign agression, but also tyranny in their own government. Thus, it makes zero sense to suppose it authorizes the government to form a government controlled standing army. This interpretation is apparent by reading Federalist #29, authored by Hamilton: [Added emphasis mine]

"By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

[/ QUOTE ]

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
.... one that only spends money on my priorities and passes laws I agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody knows your personal definition of satisfaction better than YOU! Cut out the middle man! Pay directly for your own security and hand-select how you want your rights enforced!

[/ QUOTE ]

That wouldn't work for me because I want other's to live by my laws as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least you're honest about your desire to tell other people what to do instead of dressing it up in some "greater good" BS.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
whoa, only an armed people can truely be free???? Ghandi wasnt armed and neither was Martin luther King Jr.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gandhi may not have packed heat himself (or maybe he did, I don't really know) but he knew the importance of *having that right*, whether it was exercised or not:

[ QUOTE ]
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.

[/ QUOTE ]

[CCass]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously."

It is those who ignore the militia clause who believe that what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.

1. Though some of our civil rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, are recognized in the Bill of Rights, they nevertheless exist independently and may not properly be infringed, even if the entire Bill of Rights were repealed.

2. The right to keep and bear arms is also recognized by the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

3. In any case, the militia clause in the second amendment was added to emphasize that the RKBA is a paticularly important right for the people to retain to enable them to resist not only foreign agression, but also tyranny in their own government. Thus, it makes zero sense to suppose it authorizes the government to form a government controlled standing army. This interpretation is apparent by reading Federalist #29, authored by Hamilton: [Added emphasis mine]

"By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

[/ QUOTE ]

You post goot!

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously."

It is those who ignore the militia clause who believe that what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.

1. Though some of our civil rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, are recognized in the Bill of Rights, they nevertheless exist independently and may not properly be infringed, even if the entire Bill of Rights were repealed.

2. The right to keep and bear arms is also recognized by the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

3. In any case, the militia clause in the second amendment was added to emphasize that the RKBA is a paticularly important right for the people to retain to enable them to resist not only foreign agression, but also tyranny in their own government. Thus, it makes zero sense to suppose it authorizes the government to form a government controlled standing army. This interpretation is apparent by reading Federalist #29, authored by Hamilton: [Added emphasis mine]

"By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post.

I don't think Andy is far off the mark though. I just believe the militia extents to all people who are not disinfranchised of their rights (felons). The right to bear arms has been eroded over the last 60 years or so because people were "willing" to trample their rights in order to solve a problem.

Remember when the Constitution was passed there were no:

1. Standing Armies
2. National Guard
3. Organized Police

There was just you and your ability to take care of youself as a law-abiding citizen.

And based on the following cases:

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)

Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968)

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989)

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990)

Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990)

Castle Rock v. Gonzales

The courts have repeatedly ruled that the police\government\NG\Army has no obligation to protect you or to save you. So now we are left with the thought of how to protect myself and my family.

So I own and carry a farearm everywhere that I can for the express purpose of defending myself and my family.

This is the last word if people want to be honest with themselves. There is a battle raging in the federal courts at the moment. It will definately make it to the Supreme Court. Hopefully the justices will have the fortitude to rule in favor of law abiding citizens.

I think that it is very interesting when disasters happen (9/11, Katrina) that gun sales go through the roof. People's eyes are opened to how dangerous the world is and how weak the governement is at its ability to protect "individuals". I don't fault the government because it is a n impossible task, I just am angry that they limit my ability to care for myself so that they can look like they are "doing something". I do believe that gun grabbers are for the most part well-intentioned, but vastly ignorant or unwilling to face the facts. Gun Controllers are the real extremist.

-Gryph

[slamdunkpro]

If I recall correctly the SCOTUS has always avoided ruling on the specific meaning of the 2nd amendment, or have outright refused to hear them. Many speculate this is because the liberal courts of the past didn’t want to have to affirm the RTKABA.. But now, if the next nominee is a good solid non-activist choice…… honey where’s the BAR?

[andyfox]

Good post.

1. (and 2.) I agree that the Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it preserves and guarantees pre-existing rights. That was the reason for the Bill of Rights to begin with, to assuage fears of anti-federalists that the Constitution would denigrate too many rights. Indeed, the language of the 9th amendment confirms this.

3. The militia clause to the 2nd amendment was not added.
The amendment's purpose was to allow the states to keep their militias and to protect them against the possibility that the new national government would use its power to establish a powerful standing army and eliminate the state militias. It's purpose was the protection of militia rights.

As Federalist 29 states, "It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union 'to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS'."

The original language of the amendment was:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of baring arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

It is not clear why the first two clauses were reversed, or why the third clause was left out. But it is clear that the amendment is talking about arms necessary for militia

The amendment's actual language is an embarrassment. That we are arguing over what it says, shows why. If it were written clearly it would say, "So long as [or inasmuch as] a well-regulated militia of the whole people stands as our preferred military protection in a free society, the Congress shall make no law disarming those citizens of the weapons necessary for their military duties." But let's disregard that for the moment.

The Second Amendment was a vitally important provision to the founders, expressing distrust of the professional standing army (which was the handmaiden of the European tyrants), and providing that, whatever was said in the body of the Constitution about the military arm of the new government, the people still relied on local units, comprising all eligible citizens, trained and regulated, armed with their own weapons. And further, the Amendment served notice that no jealous organ of the central government should ever try to weaken the people's army by making laws depriving the eligible citizenry of their weapons necessary for such people's armies.

There are no militias now that are like the militias at the time of the founding. It is not unusual that things that were important in the eighteenth century are not important now. One thinks of the third amendment, forbidding the quartering of troops in private residences during peacetime. Or the 7th that guarantees a trial by jury for all civil cases where the amount in dipute exceeds $20.

I do not think the Second Amendment has any bearing on the question of whether guns should be freely available or sharply controlled. The Amendment is irrelevant to the issue (as important as that issue is).

That leaves the matter completely in the hands of the political branch. Which is, I think, how it should be. The people decide, by legislative choice, many important aspects of their lives together in society. The wisdom, effectiveness, configuration, and moral virtue of gun control is an appropriate matter for the expression of popular sovereignty rather than constitutional control. Indeed, the 9th amendment supports this viewpoint. The right of the people to decide what they want to do with guns is not prohibited or prescribed by the constitution.