Chazumi
Trained& Motivated Killer
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,254
When were you in prison? Or working at one?
SCOTUS to rule on 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter Bugfatty300
- Start date
When were you in prison? Or working at one?
Berzerker
Deity
Cleo
Its not either or, both are valid. The Framers did not want a big standing army (or one at all) and they believed the states were ultimately responsible for their own security (even from the Feds). The 2nd Amendment affirms the necessity of the states to maintain effective militias with the added capacity to call upon an armed general populace in times of increased danger. The two phrases go together, with the necessity of state militias, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Its not either or, both are valid. The Framers did not want a big standing army (or one at all) and they believed the states were ultimately responsible for their own security (even from the Feds). The 2nd Amendment affirms the necessity of the states to maintain effective militias with the added capacity to call upon an armed general populace in times of increased danger. The two phrases go together, with the necessity of state militias, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
blackheart
unenlightened
When were you in court for killing a police officer?
"All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state."
Backatcha.
And the trump:
"Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."
Bigfoot3814
Deity
Yeah, that just about says it. I know in my head it's right, and I agree with it, but reading it seems a little Turner Diaries-ish.
Berzerker,
Right, but what legal effect does the Militia Clause have? Your interpretation is pretty close to my description of the Militia Clause as a "whereas clause" or a "Preamble." I.e., "Because of X & Y, the government may not do Z," where Z is the only legal prescription in the Amendment. X & Y explain the purpose of Z, but don't actually do any "work." Nowhere else in the Bill of Rights is there an explanatory phrase like that, and I don't know of many in the pre-Amendment Constitution either. It really makes for a tough question.
Cleo
Right, but what legal effect does the Militia Clause have? Your interpretation is pretty close to my description of the Militia Clause as a "whereas clause" or a "Preamble." I.e., "Because of X & Y, the government may not do Z," where Z is the only legal prescription in the Amendment. X & Y explain the purpose of Z, but don't actually do any "work." Nowhere else in the Bill of Rights is there an explanatory phrase like that, and I don't know of many in the pre-Amendment Constitution either. It really makes for a tough question.
Cleo
EdwardTking
Deity
I interpet this primarily as a restriction on the laws that the United States legislative houses may pass and on any federal government regulations.
There is arguably a secondary restriction on the laws individual states can pass, but this is less clear.
I refer to the term "well regulated".
What does this mean?
This implicitly does not include all adults.
I rather think it excludes ex-cons.
It does not convey any individual right.
Now if a state decides it will notionally divide its citizens into:
Category A: those trained, serving, reserved or otherwise identified
as suitable for being in a militia; and
Category B: everyone else.
then that state government or the federal US government could for people in Category B prohibit the ownership or possession of arms (weapons) or regulate their ownership and possession however they like.
The amendment is about the right of individual states to have a militia and have that right supported in practice by an armed citizenry so as to fight off us British!
It is not a right for any citizen to bear arms.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
According to federal law the "militia" is both catagory B and catagory A.
1. Organised: National Guard
2. Unorganised: The People
Even so, "the right of the people" is evident enough. For the militia to work the people must be armed.
The people in general (collective right) or all persons (individual right)?
Berzerker
Deity
That hasn't changed much, the Natl Guard has replaced a well-regulated militia and the general populace (right of the people) is still the unorganized militia.
Preambles dont have any legal authority, they're general goals to be achieved by enforcing the powers that follow. The legal authority for militias was established in the Constitution and the reason why we dont see explanations for the other rights in the BoR is that the BoR did not apply to the states.
The Framers did provide some explanations when talking about the states. For example, the prohibition on federal ex post facto laws gives us no reason as to why (SCOTUS says it refers only to criminal law, they're wrong) but when the same Constitution prohibits the states from passing ex post facto laws it does explain why - such laws endanger contracts. Notice how the explanation is not about criminal laws (which are so obviously tyrannical) but to monetary matters? SCOTUS let Clinton raise taxes retroactively, that endangers contracts.
The Militia clause of the 2nd Amendment merely repeats what was already established in the Constitution - the states will have militias for their security - and the Feds will not get in the way of the people arming themselves. The Feds were one of the potential threats to the security of the states, its illogical to give that potential threat the power to ban the guns the people would need to combat the threat.
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
EdwardTking said:
I suppose those old chaps writing the bill of rights had to sneak that one in a document that consists of nine other individual liberties then.
Must have been the bourbon!
~Chris
Ecofarm
Deity
Unless there is substantial reason to construe the phrase as collective, the rights of the individual should not be curtailed. As our constitution is not based on the rights of groups (outside of governmental function), default = individual.
I truely can't see why machineguns are prohibited, given that clause.
I agree, which is why I would expect ex-felons to be able to possess after the strict constructionists on the Court do their job.
Instead of arguing what a more than 200 years old text written in archaic language really means or what the writer intended it to mean, why not changing it to something clear, that cannot be misunderstood and that reflects the opinion of most Americans?
Bigfoot3814
Deity
English is not an archaic language. And I think the oppinion of most Americans is that the bill of rights should stand.
The "argument" I think you're talking about is whether the right to bear arms trumps the right to not be killed by one. Same argument wether freedom of speech trumps the right not to hear it.
And you're suggesting that we simply throw out the constitution, the foundation of freedom in the United States. The constitution works. And tell me all about this magical world where we can scribble over the rights of our citizens just because you feel like you speak for everyone.
Amending the US Constitution is a major undertaking. Unless the political consensus at the time is overwhelming, and in this case it's not, then there's no real chance of it happening.
The English the constitution is written in is, though.
I am not saying it should be deleted or something. But if for example two third of America think that the second amendment says (or should say) that it is an individual right to bear arms, why not settle the argument once and for all and replace the second amendment with clear language.
Bigfoot3814
Deity
I think you're calling that a hypothetical situation. And if you're not, where did you aquire this knowlege.
If you think you can do a better job a than the framers of the constitution, go right ahead.
You're predicting an increase in civil liberties after attacking law enforcement? Really?
Wow, the insurgents attacking the police recruiting offices must have had the same idea!
Similar threads
