Second Amendment

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Jagger, Oct 29, 2008.

  1. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    There is little evidence that the framers of the Second Amendment were concerned with recognizing an individual right to keep arms...the framers of the amendment were concerned primarily with the constitutional organization of political violence rather than individual rights. ​
    --Gun Regulation, the Police Power, and the Right to Keep Arms in Early America: The Legal Context of the Second Amendment; ROBERT H. CHURCHILL​
  2. UpstateNYUPSer

    UpstateNYUPSer Very proud grandfather. there a point anywhere in our future?
  3. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Here is the point that I took from it. He is saying the framers recognized no individual right to bear arms so that in itself implys that the right to bear arms in reserved to the people or the states.

    Amendment IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
  4. trplnkl

    trplnkl 555

    Did you read the whole thing? I didn't with my very slow reading speed it would take me about a week to read the whole thing, but I think it would be interesting.
    To me the bottom line is, regardless of what any so called scholars think, the SCOUS has the final say in the matter (which can change from time to time) and at this point they say we do have the right as individuals to keep arms.
  5. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Who me? Nope I was just poking fun at the R. Churchill quote.
  6. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    The point is:

    The Second Amendment contains two clauses that don't coincide. In 1789, the meaning of the term "well regulated militia" wasn't equivalent to the meaning of the word "people."

    The term "well regulated militia" meant "properly adjusted standing force of the nation." The "word" people meant "a nation; those who compose a community."

    The Second Amendment was obviously intended to be ambiguous. We could play junior history detectives from now until the Lord comes again and rains down his wrath on the Flying Monkeys of the Right Wing but that probably wouldn't get us any closer than we are now to knowing exactly what those Federalist butt monkeys were thinking when they wrote the Second Amendment.

    Fortunately however, we don't have to do that, because there existed, in 1789, a system of "rules of construction", or "rules of legal interpretation", which had been established to ascertain the meaning of ambiguous language in a constitution. All we have to do is take the words of the Second Amendment, set aside our personal views, apply the rule and accept the results.

    In 1789, the rule of legal interpretation applicable to a situation where the parts of a legal expression didn't coincide was that, "the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means."

    The end being sought by the Second Amendment is "the security of a free state." The means to that end is "a well regulated militia." "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" functions in a subordinate capacity as merely an auxiliary means to the end of "the security of a free state."

    The applicable rule of construction dictates that we sacrifice the meaning of the word "people" to the end of "the security of a free state." Thus, we are compelled to construe the word "people" to mean "well regulated militia", and understand the second clause of the Amendment to mean, the right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
  7. tourists24

    tourists24 Well-Known Member

    ummmm,,, I think your question still stands. I think I better go cling to my gun while we wait
  8. UPS Lifer

    UPS Lifer Well-Known Member

    I think we can interpret the 2nd Amendment anyway we want as long as it means that we can cling to our guns! Gun sales are currently up 8% to 10% here is the state of Arizona.
  9. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    What the heck? Does that mean if it ain't been granted or denied by the constititution then the states can grant it or deny it?

    Or if I don't tell you that you can do it and I don't tell you that you can't do it then that means you get to decide whether you want to do it or not?

    Or If ain't been talked about then you can decide whether you want to talk about it?

    No wonder you guys spend years arguing about the meaning behind the constitution.

  10. tourists24

    tourists24 Well-Known Member

    I use a simple criteria when looking at the bill of rights. The bill of rights were formed to protect civil liberties for individuals, plain and simple. When wondering if government should be able to infringe on any of these amendments, ask yourself if it is protecting individual liberty or taking away for the better good
  11. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    If you want to know the object of the first twelve amendments that Congress proposed to the states, just read the preamble Congress attached to them.

    The object of the Amendments was to
    "extend the ground of public confidence in the Government" in order to " best insure the beneficent ends of its institution." The means to that end was "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the Constitution's powers." The means to prevent misconstruction or abuse were "declaratory and restrictive clauses. "

    There is nothing in the Preamble about protecting civil liberties for individuals and the first two amendments proposed, and presumably the most importation, had nothing whatsoever to do with individual rights.
    Article the first . . . After the first enumeration required by the first Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

    Article the second . . . No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

    When I endeavor to ascertain the meaning of the Constitution, I just apply the rules of legal interpretation as prevailed in the late 1780's, because they were universally accepted as the way, the only way, to interpret a constitution.
  12. tourists24

    tourists24 Well-Known Member

    you read however you wish,,, the bill of rights were written to protect the people from the government. The constitution itself is meant to limit government
  13. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    you're interpretation tends to rule against any support of individual rights?

    Wouldn't congresses interpretation at that time as we migrated away from a monarchy to a republic tend to rule more towards government and less towards the individual?

    Should the translation of constitutional intent remain mired in the 1780's or are we allowed to flex some towards todays perspective.
  14. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    I just apply the rules of legal interpretation and let the pieces fall where they may.

    Beats me. I just apply the rules of construction to ascertain the meaning of the Constitution.

    No. The Constitution is a suicide pact.
  15. UPS Lifer

    UPS Lifer Well-Known Member

    I agree with you. The biggest mistake we make is over analyzing! AND by so doing, you can usually make an argument for and against.

    What good does that accomplish?

    Keep it simple!

    Example - I was on a 2 month Fed court trial that involved the language of a contract. The attorneys spent the entire 2 months reviewing words and phrases as to what the intent was of this contract. The case was in the system for about 7 years before it was finally adjudicated.
  16. ladmeih

    ladmeih Member

    If the framers knew what the government has become they'd roll over in their graves.

    It's called the "Bill of Rights" for a reason, they're to protect individual rights, not the states. If you could call into question the individual right to bear arms then you could call into question the individual right to free speech and every other one of the first 10 amendments.

    The guy who wrote that article is an idiot.
  17. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    I can tell you what it means to me. It means that our rights do not originate from the federal government and are retained by the people. The federal government only has the power we the people give it through the constitution.

    I think the idea behind the United States was to have a group of individual states with a very limited central federal government. There are certain rights however that were included in the constitution that the states were not allowed to take away. I believe the right to keep and bear arms was meant to be one of them but even if you don't believe this there should be no authority granted to the federal government to regulate or restrict arms. It would be then left up to the states.

    Of course none of this matters since the highest court has ruled otherwise. The Constitution clearly says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The courts have clearly ruled that both the states and the federal government have the right to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Now look at what the constitution says about speech. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. The courts have decided to take it on themselves that this means not only can congress not make a law but also states cannot pass these laws. Some on here have even taken this to mean that if I disagree with them that I am in violation of their first amendment.

    OK my overall broad point is that if we went by the constitution as our nation evolved we have the means and right to add or take away powers from the federal government through the amendment process. After all the Government only exists because we the people allow it to exist. Many on here seem to believe that we the people exist because the government allows us to exist.
  18. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    I know Thomas Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he knew we let Congress assume advisory authority over our religion.

    Why do you suppose the men who made it didn't call it that?

    You have apparently never read the twelve amendments Congress recommended to the States. Start by reading the first two they proposed. Then report back here with your findings.

    There is no individual right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment, unless you ignore the well established common law method of legal interpretation that existed when the Second Amendment was made.

    However, keep in mind that the Constitution does not grant the federal government general authority over the keeping and bear of arms.
  19. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    I hereby issue a challenge for anyone to produce evidence that anyone objected to the proposed U. S. Constitution because it didn't guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms.
  20. tourists24

    tourists24 Well-Known Member

    hmm,,, good thing it is an individual right; might be why no one would have objected. That saves me a lot of research time.