You're not so alone. I'm an

Furion of Hussein — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:16:21 +0000

In reply to Authoritarian "Justices" shred Constitution once again

You're not so alone. I'm an absolutist on the Bill of Rights, everyone of them.

Glad to know I'm not alone :)

Anything resembling a

Furion of Hussein — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:15:14 +0000

In reply to Authoritarian "Justices" shred Constitution once again

Anything resembling a thorough look at the arguments and reasoning behind the Second Amendment make this as plain as day.

Asserting it doesn't make it so.

The Second Amendment pertains solely to the militia.

Did you even read what I wrote?

No, it doesn't. A militia can't exist without an armed populace. "the people" referred to in the Amendment is individuals.

Our founders held this right so inalienable that they actually fought over whether to bother to protect it.

the tortured and stretched arguments you present for extending this right of the people to maintain a militia and for the militia to be armed to individuals for private purposes is simply invalid.

Yet you've not attempted to refute a single one of my arguments.

You're not so alone. I'm an

oceankat — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:45:33 +0000

In reply to Authoritarian "Justices" shred Constitution once again

You're not so alone. I'm an absolutist on the Bill of Rights, everyone of them.

The meaning of the Second

oleeb — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:33:08 +0000

In reply to Authoritarian "Justices" shred Constitution once again

The meaning of the Second Amenment is crystal clear. Anything resembling a thorough look at the arguments and reasoning behind the Second Amendment make this as plain as day. The Second Amendment pertains solely to the militia. It isn't, wasn't and cannot honestly be interpreted as providing some broad private right to own weapons just for the sake of owning weapons. the tortured and stretched arguments you present for extending this right of the people to maintain a militia and for the militia to be armed to individuals for private purposes is simply invalid.

I realize I'm probably in the

Furion of Hussein — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:21:00 +0000

In reply to Authoritarian "Justices" shred Constitution once again

I realize I'm probably in the minority in this perspective on this website, but I disagree completely.

The fundamental issue here is this one:

Elbridge Gerry asked and answered that question: 'What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to preven the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.' Thus the purpose of the Second Amendment was to forbid Congress to prohibit the maintenance of a state militia. By its nature, that amendment cannot be transformed into a personal right to bear arms, enforceable by federal compulsion upon the states."

It's not accurate to think of a militia as a standing army maintained by the State, in the context of how the word was used in the 18th century. Then, as relevant to the language in the Amendment, the word 'militia' is synonymous with 'the people', since a militia would be called together from individuals who would each bring their own weapons and ammunition. This is why the Amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." If it were meant to be a collective right, the word 'State' would be used twice.

The first part of the statement is meant to show why the right must be protected; not to qualify it.

From U.S. v. Emerson, 1999:

"Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized."

Further reading on Madison and Hamilton reveal that they believed militias to be necessary, as the section of your post I have quoted states - to prevent the Federal government from keeping a standing army. But the question is - why?

Because FURTHER reading of Madison and Jefferson reveals that they based the necessity of the 2nd Amendment on the idea that disarming the people - THE PEOPLE, mind you, not the State - is the best way to enslave them. Jefferson repeatedly remarked that "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

You have to understand, the Constitution never once strips individuals of any rights. Read it. It never does. This is because the Constitution is a structural document intended to grant very limited powers to a central government; any rights not explicitly protected, are assumed to be protected.

EVEN IF a reading of the 2nd Amendment implied collective rights, that still would not imply that there is no individual right to bear arms - because nowhere in the document is that right denied.

Frankly, the fact that we're even having this discussion in this day and age would shock our founders - the idea that the State could rob us of a right they considered so fundamental that there were massive political battles over whether or not to even WRITE the 2nd Amendment (this was one of the key points of disagreement between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists).

The problem is, this issue requires significant historical perspective, because the way we read the Amendment has changed from what was meant when it was written.

We no longer understand the word 'militia' in the same way as it was meant 220 years ago. The sentence structure used in the 2nd Amendment is now very uncommon, and when used, is understood to be a qualifying statement, but that was not how such language was used 220 years ago.

The phrase 'the people' was never used in a collective sense in the Constitution - it was intended to be indicative of protected rights of individuals.

A collective reading of the 2nd Amendment would also, for consistency, require that only the State is entitled to the peaceable assembly protections in the 1st Amendment, for example - after all, it says "the right of the people to peaceably assemble." A collective reading of that phrase renders the Amendment meaningless - interpreting "the people" as the State is nonsensical, because the State isn't an entity that can assemble for the purpose of protest. And even if it could, we've never tried to interpret the 1st Amendment that way.

Or the 4th Amendment, guaranteeing the people the right to be secure in their persons - interpreting that collectively is nonsensical.

Yet in all cases, consistency would require that interpretation.

It makes far more sense, then, to interpret "the people" as indicative of unnamed individuals, not a collectivist entity.

dagblog - Comments for "Authoritarian "Justices" shred Constitution once again"

You're not so alone. I'm an

Anything resembling a

You're not so alone. I'm an

The meaning of the Second

I realize I'm probably in the