The Second Amendment
Question:
Knowing the actual wording of the amendment, do you think it protects the rights of individuals to bear arms; in particular, guns?
[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. <hr></blockquote>
That is the entire text.
My belief (and you will find this interesting since I am quite conservative), is that the clear the purpose of the amendment is to allow people to bear arms for the purposes of forming a militia, thereby protecting the individual state. I do not believe we have the constitutional right to bear firearms for "any reason we can think of", since a militia is no longer required.
The US has the most handgun deaths in the free world, by far. I support a total ban on handguns, while still allowing shotguns, rifles, etc. I understand that many believe we will not stop violence by banning hanguns. I understand that some believe a handgun ban will only take guns away from legal, responsible gun owners. I disagree. I believe many crimes are committed with legally purchased guns (or ones that are purchased then stolen). I believe a total ban, if enforced properly, would reduce gun deaths. I also believe we should protect hunters and sport shooters by allowing rifles.
[ 05-26-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
Knowing the actual wording of the amendment, do you think it protects the rights of individuals to bear arms; in particular, guns?
[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. <hr></blockquote>
That is the entire text.
My belief (and you will find this interesting since I am quite conservative), is that the clear the purpose of the amendment is to allow people to bear arms for the purposes of forming a militia, thereby protecting the individual state. I do not believe we have the constitutional right to bear firearms for "any reason we can think of", since a militia is no longer required.
The US has the most handgun deaths in the free world, by far. I support a total ban on handguns, while still allowing shotguns, rifles, etc. I understand that many believe we will not stop violence by banning hanguns. I understand that some believe a handgun ban will only take guns away from legal, responsible gun owners. I disagree. I believe many crimes are committed with legally purchased guns (or ones that are purchased then stolen). I believe a total ban, if enforced properly, would reduce gun deaths. I also believe we should protect hunters and sport shooters by allowing rifles.
[ 05-26-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
Comments
Criminals would have to use other weapons - fists or bats or other things easily found - to hold up a store.
Of course, what's to stop them from walking ainto a bank with a rifle?
And what will you dop about the handguns that are present in the US currently?
<strong>"of the people" <- what does that mean in that text?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That would mean "people". As in you and me.
In the same way, the second amendment gives the people the right to bear arms, conditioned upon their membership in the militia.
<strong>The words "of the people" appears in this one, too: Does it give you an absolute right to be free from search and seizure? No, it doesn't. It's conditioned upon reasonableness and warrants with specific information about what is to be searched.
In the same way, the second amendment gives the people the right to bear arms, conditioned upon their membership in the militia.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What a leap of logic. Too bad you missed. Would you argue that "of the peope" in the First is also conditional because the Fourth is? What would you say to a USSC that agrued that because the Fourth is conditional there for the First is as well.
Try again.
You'll just have ot change it.
If I had to choose right now, I would try and get handguns off the street...regardless of what it says in the constitution... blah blah blah constitutional right this constitutional right that... fact of the matter is people are using handguns to kill people and this needs to stop... sure, people are still going to kill people, but it is completely differnt to shoot someone then it is to kill them with a bat, or a knife.....
, the interpretation of an amandement is a way to turn it to fit your wishs or the reality of the new time. World is changing and sometimes old wise scripture does not bring the correct solutions in the real world.
In other way , the amandement are a holy scripture and cannot be changed each time people wanted. So many people adapt it. See the bible and how people interpret it to fit the real world, they make an interpretation that fit the real world. Considering that the real world is always evolving the interpretation do the same. Some can find this ugly, but do you prefer people who never change of interpretation like the Islamic extremist ?
Just a few thoughts, no answers.
[ 05-26-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
<strong>Would you argue that "of the peope" in the First is also conditional because the Fourth is?</strong><hr></blockquote>No, because the First Amendment does not contain any exceptions or conditions. It is written as absolute. Unlike the Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth, for example.
The pro-gun groups are the ones distorting the plain meaning of this Amendment. Go to the NRA website - guess what it says at the top. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Hmm, notice how they left out a few words? Why did they do that? Because they know a plain, unedited reading of the Second Amendment shows that having guns is not an absolute right - it was intended for the purpose of maintaining well-regulated state militias.
Yes, at the time, everyone (well, all land-owning males) was expected to be part of the militia. But we don't do militias anymore. Military equipment is all owned by the gov't now.
Despite the NRA's claims, the US Supreme Court has never, ever, not once struck down a gun control law on a Second Amendment basis. To the contrary, they've upheld gun control laws and made it plain that the Second Amendment only applies within the context of a well-regulated militia.
The entire history of the Supreme Court and a plain reading of the actual Amendment on one side, John Ashcroft and the NRA on the other.
I don't think guns should be banned. First, they could never do it. It's just too much a part of our history. Second, I'm not sure it would help anyway. Other regulations like registration to keep track of them and stricter controls on who can buy them would work almost as well at cutting down deaths.
But some of you folks start out with the idea that we should have guns, and then reason backwards to what you want the Second Amendment to mean. That's illogical.
why would you be naive enought to assume that Militia's are no longer required. What happens if the US Gov succombs to Tyranny? What would an unarmed population do to subvert this?
As the Terrorists Attacks have poignantly shown...your safety is largely an intangible feeling that you possess that is fleeting at best.
<strong>why would you be naive enought to assume that Militia's are no longer required. What happens if the US Gov succombs to Tyranny? What would an unarmed population do to subvert this?</strong><hr></blockquote>It's not so much that they're not required, it's just that, for better or worse, it's no longer the way we do things. We have a national military now.
BTW, guess what happened last time we had strong state militias who believed the national gov't had become tyrannical.
<strong>It's not so much that they're not required, it's just that, for better or worse, it's no longer the way we do things. We have a national military now.
BTW, guess what happened last time we had strong state militias who believed the national gov't had become tyrannical.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't buy that arguement for the simple reason that our Country was founded by people fed up with Persecution on many different levels. Gov's tend to increase their scope in power and influence as time passes. I don't put it beyond our Founding Forefathers to attempt to prevent these. Remember Militias are NOT to be under Federal control...there's a reason for that.
Seems to me that if they meant anyone out there, they wouldn't bother with the first half of that statement. What would the whole "well organized militia" bit mean otherwise? Just an inane aside?
It would help to understand the context of this Amendment after our colonial rule by the British.
<strong>Pardon me if i am wrong, but an amandement is something created after the constitution of the US. I think many amandements where created to enhance the constitution or to answers problems of the real world. I do not think that all amandements should be followed strictly in 1000 years (long life USA )
, the interpretation of an amandement is a way to turn it to fit your wishs or the reality of the new time. World is changing and sometimes old wise scripture does not bring the correct solutions in the real world.
In other way , the amandement are a holy scripture and cannot be changed each time people wanted. So many people adapt it. See the bible and how people interpret it to fit the real world, they make an interpretation that fit the real world. Considering that the real world is always evolving the interpretation do the same. Some can find this ugly, but do you prefer people who never change of interpretation like the Islamic extremist ?
Just a few thoughts, no answers.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's a debate between what's called the strict constructionist (constitution means what it says) and others who think that it needs to be interpreted within context of the times.
The larger issue is between those that try to use the court system and judicial rulings to affect public policy and those that believe that the will of the people is best expressed in the laws passed by the legislature.
Many liberals are unable to get their laws and policies on the books via legitimate means. By passing laws and having them enforced. So rather they do an end run around the body of government closest to the people, the legislature, and go to the court system to "make things right". They want the judges to be the King Solomon of our times. The problem is that then we are subjected to what could be the whim of a court system that thwarts the will of the people. We wind up losing control over the law and our rights. Sometime in the future some judge may decide that freedom of speech is and outdated concept and that public speaking is no longer protected speech. What then?
If banning guns is the obvious choice for our country right now why can't the anti-gun lobby convince Americans of that? If they could then rescinding the fourth would be a cake walk. But they can't and so the right to bare arms continues. That's why they filed all the class action law suits against gun makers. One to get something done in the courts that they couldn't get done in the legislature. Two it was a chance for dirty greedy lawyers to suck more money out of a business sector with as little effort as possible.
So the moral is don't ask the courts to do what you can't get done via the law or ... constitutional amendment. That's how the will of the people is expressed.
[ 05-26-2002: Message edited by: scott_h_phd ]</p>
I interpret this to obviously mean that in order to be effective the militia needs to be well equipped with plenty of guns and ammo.
"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "
Militias were made up of citizens. There was no standing membership, if there was an emergency you grabbed you gun and went. I believe the founding fathers are clearly saying that anyone willing to defend themselves and the country have the undeniable right to keep guns.
Only fools and fundamentalists believe in there being but one true meaning that does not change in time and in context THAT can be universally and in all times seen for what it is in a text without interpretation. Every act of reading is an act of interpreting.
This is the principle of Hermeneutics, as I have said repeatedly on these boards... so I won't go into it again.
needless to say, though, that we always interpret: even 'facts' are interpretations. And, the processes of jurisprudence and the law are the arena where the unavoidable act of interpretation is spelled out clearest: it is a structural necessity and mode of operation within the legal process.
ie= The situation is interpreted within a background of pre-existing sets of judgements in similar cases, the evidence is compiled and weighed, precedence is considered, guilt or innocence is detirmined (if need be) based on interpretation of presentations, and, again, the judgement is given in light of the history and the present circumstances conjoined together through the interpretation of all the given factors and ideas of appropriateness.
Its simple minded to think "it means what it says"
Now as for scottandhisphd's ideas about liberal tactics in the face of the 'popularity' of gun ownership.... hmm?!?! I don't know but it seems that its actually the gun lobby that are the minority... its just that they are well funded and can be a scary bunch of crazy loons, who are very well known for threatening anybody who has any measure of success with any anti-gun platform . . . like the guy in Seattle recently
I'm not anti-gun... though I do like to see a good arguement against them ( like the very elloquent BRussell) . . it makes me question my belief in the right . . . which is on the fence right now any
<a href="http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html" target="_blank">http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html</a>
Regarding the Supreme Court, the decisions they render depend on the political beliefs of the justices at the time of the case. If the justices are liberal, they'll generally base their decisions to fit their ideology and/or personal beliefs. If the justices is conservative, they'll generally base their decisions on the existing laws and/or constitution.
And just because the name of the court is Supreme, it doesn't mean that it will necessarily make the smartest or right decisions. For example, recall the Dred Scott Decision in 1857.
BTW, I've never owned a gun (except for a few BB and pellet guns when I was a kid). And I'm not planning on buying one in the future. But I absolutly support you or anybody else's right to buy a pistol or rifle if you desire so long as your not a criminal and respect the well being of others.
In the end, I would hope gun control is more about responsibility than control per se. The Second Amendment doesn't condone vigilantism, ubt it does require self-vigilance.
[ 05-27-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
To take away my civil liberties there had better be a damned good reason, and I see absolutely no compelling reason to support banning any currently-allowed gun (automatic weapons already banned and rightfully so).
The same people who claim that 1,000 murderers should be let free before 1 innocent man is punished will certainly take away the rights of 1,000 to protect an ignorant 1.
I hope we keep our heads on straight and start paying less attention to sensationalism.
[edit]
[quote]BTW, guess what happened last time we had strong state militias who believed the national gov't had become tyrannical.<hr></blockquote>
And the time before that?
(*hint* The U.S. was born)
Not as clever a remark as you hoped it would be.
[ 05-27-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
<strong>Ah, it's all semantics, isn't it? Strict construction, deconstruction, we can't trust words by themselves. Words have meaning. Meaning is poen to interpretation, no matter how clear or ludicrous. It's important to take in all possibilities, then filter out some with a little common sense, some context, a liberal (meaning a lot, not the political connotation) application of literalism, and a heaping of the greater good.
]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, I see. you want to have sex with Hillary Clinton and sell the video tape to the people of New york. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />