RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists

RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

FatDomDaddy -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 4:27:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'll get started by presenting the two versions of the second amendment: "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" is the version approved by congress and recorded in the National Archives. However this version "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" Is the version most, perhaps all the states ratified. In comparing th etwo versions it is completely possible to get two very different amendments out of this single sentence. If the amendment meant "Militia" as a proper noun then they're talking about what is today the National Guard and the debate about personal rights to own firearms is moot. If the amendment meant "militia" as a common noun then it was in the more general term of all able bodied adult men which strongly implies a ban on laws controling ownership of personal firearms. There was not defined federal militia and certainly nothing in comparison to The National Guard in 1788-89. There were numerous militia, in different units. Militia meant the self defense forces/guard of a particular area, there were town militia, county militia, state militia. Many had different uniforms, weapons and training and it was unclear who they answered to and when. All or some could be called upon in times emergency. BUT...the Revolution would have failed without the men of these militia and (this is important) the members of these militia were private citizens who PROVIDED THEIR OWN PERSONAL ARMS AND SIDE ARMS. Thus the reason for the Second Amendment. The words everyone seems to be overlooking and which allows the state reasonable gun laws, that allow "The People" to keep and bear arms are, "well regulated". It clearly allows Government to not just regulate but to well regulate, militia which is made up of and by "The People". I am not a gun owner and haven't fired a firearm since I left The Marine Corps in 1988. I have no desire to own one nor fire one. I support the right of the people to keep and bear arms, especially for self defense. But I also support Government's ability to regulate gun ownership and make reasonable gun laws.

DomKen -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 4:28:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The US Constitution trumps any and all state action period. The 14th amendment applies all federally granted rights to all persons in the US no matter the opinions of the states. That is all extremely well settled law. 1st Amendment: Fully incorporated. 2nd Amendment: No Supreme Court decision on incorporation since 1876 (when it was rejected). 3rd Amendment: No Supreme Court decision; 2nd Circuit found to be incorporated. 4th Amendment: Fully incorporated. 5th Amendment: Incorporated except for clause guaranteeing criminal prosecution only on a grand jury indictment. 6th Amendment: Fully incorporated. 7th Amendment: Not incorporated. 8th Amendment: Incorporated with respect to the protection against "cruel and unusual punishments," but no specific Supreme Court ruling on the incorporation of the "excessive fines" and "excessive bail" protections. The 3rd amendment is about quartering soldiers in private homes. I'm positive it applies to the states and the only reason the SCOTUS has never ruled on the matter is no state has ever tried to do so and then apealed to the SCOTUS when they got sued. It's fully incorporated. The 5th's requirement of Grand Juries is not incorporated for no reason I understand and is one of those things I bet a decent lawyer could get changed. The 7th isn't incorporated? I guess the dollar amount is the problem but I have a problem with picking and choosin. the 14th says "immunities and privileges" not just the convenient ones. From what I can find the 8th is mostly because excessive fine and excessive bail cases never go to federal court but instead get brought under every states exact same protections. So in reality the 8th is fully incorporated. So maybe the SCOTUS won't force juries for small claims cases or require grand jury indictment, which I actually wouldn't be surprised to see changed, that is 2 awfully small points to use to argue that this isn't settled law. The US Constitution is the law of the land and the 14th amendment does apply all rights to the states except the right to a jury trial in civil cases.

kdsub -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 5:21:25 PM)
As long as ultimately you can hold some form of cold steel with projectiles inside in your warm little hands... rules and regulations are not an infringement...simple to me. Hmmm what happens when your super new hand held popgun is able to destroy a city block ...or a city…would you still feel rules and regulations was an infringement? Or would you not care if your local pot head or 12 year old could carry? Don't you think that any interpretation of the constitution should be tempered with common sense? Butch

Kirata -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 5:45:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Or would you not care if your local pot head or 12 year old could carry? I'd much prefer it be the pothead. [:D] K.

kdsub -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 5:55:57 PM)
But what if it is a 12 year old pothead...you know… any rule is an infringement of our rights… legalize pot for all I say. Give em a toke and pass the ammo.

tazzygirl -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 6:04:30 PM)
a 12 year old pot head would do one of two things... sell the gun for more pot... or rob people for more pot.. take your choice ( a rare few would work for the money.. lets leave them out since they are rare)

Vaughner -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 6:15:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'll get started by presenting the two versions of the second amendment: "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" is the version approved by congress and recorded in the National Archives. However this version "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" Is the version most, perhaps all the states ratified. In comparing th etwo versions it is completely possible to get two very different amendments out of this single sentence. If the amendment meant "Militia" as a proper noun then they're talking about what is today the National Guard and the debate about personal rights to own firearms is moot. If the amendment meant "militia" as a common noun then it was in the more general term of all able bodied adult men which strongly implies a ban on laws controling ownership of personal firearms. There was not defined federal militia and certainly nothing in comparison to The National Guard in 1788-89. There were numerous militia, in different units. Militia meant the self defense forces/guard of a particular area, there were town militia, county militia, state militia. Many had different uniforms, weapons and training and it was unclear who they answered to and when. All or some could be called upon in times emergency. BUT...the Revolution would have failed without the men of these militia and (this is important) the members of these militia were private citizens who PROVIDED THEIR OWN PERSONAL ARMS AND SIDE ARMS. Thus the reason for the Second Amendment. The words everyone seems to be overlooking and which allows the state reasonable gun laws, that allow "The People" to keep and bear arms are, "well regulated". It clearly allows Government to not just regulate but to well regulate, militia which is made up of and by "The People". I am not a gun owner and haven't fired a firearm since I left The Marine Corps in 1988. I have no desire to own one nor fire one. I support the right of the people to keep and bear arms, especially for self defense. But I also support Government's ability to regulate gun ownership and make reasonable gun laws. The problem with that argument is that in the language of the day regulate did not mean restrict, but to maintain (as in keep at a useful level). Hence the modern meaning is a "well maintained militia". Not to mention that in English Common Law the "Militia" was EVERY able-bodied male between ages 15 and 50. The Second Amendment exists pure and simply to protect the country from invasion, and to provide the common folk with the means to overthrow a corrupt government or institution. Quote Japanese Admiral Yammamoto "You cannot invade the United States, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass" Pro-Bono or for the public good allows even constitutional terms to be "tweaked" if it is in fact for the public good. Such as restrictions on the first amendment that keep you from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. As a gun owner I see the problem on this subject being culutural, and not one of the firearms itself. 50 years ago you did not see anywhere near the same level of crime you did today, with, or without a firearm. As a culture turns more violent tools capable of violence will increase in usage. Accidental deaths increased over the years because general firearm ownership and with it the knowledge of how to safely handle and operate them declined. What really burns me on the subject are the people who claim things like "Well the founding father's couldn't have envisiond X". This to me is a stupid argument, they knew technology advanced, they knew firearms at one time did not exist. They knew that ranged weapons in any form did not exist at one time. If George Lucas and Gene Rodenberry can envision ships that travel faster than light, and weapons that produce over 40 megatons of force with less than five pounds of fuel, the founding fathers could envision more advanced firearms. Pro Bono restriction is one thing, but when is the last time any politician exercised good sense on well, anything?

Kirata -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 6:22:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales Maybe it was the idea that the owning and carrying of loaded firearms is a devine right decreed by God gave me the idea? That's not what he said, nor did he cite any divine "decree". You simply chose to completely ignore the phrase, "or at least my mom and dad," which makes it unmistakably clear that the position he espoused was that the right is inherent and exists regardless of whether or not anyone (himself included) believes it to be God given. K.

kdsub -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 6:30:17 PM)
I forgot 12 years olds are against tos forgive me...but there are many examples to be used. Every word of the Constitution has been interpreted or twisted to another meaning. You can only hope sensible people prevail. Butch

SpinnerofTales -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 6:36:38 PM)
deleted

Marc2b -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 8:21:57 PM)
quote: i dunno.. i think the "fuck your gun laws" may be a bit unsettling. I can see how some might find it so but it just may be a case of pasionate expression.

Marc2b -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 8:30:25 PM)
quote: When someone starts talking about the fact that God gave him the right to carry loaded firearms, I start to get a little edgy. Who knows if he thinks God is actually talking to him and telling him so? And who knows what he will tell him to do next? That's one possible interpetation. Another is that he is acknowledging the basic premise, the underlying philosophy, of the American system of government - that our rights come to us from God (called the Creator in the Declaration of Independence) and not from government. Personally I don't care if people call it the Creator, God, the Universe, or the Great Chicken in the Sky; if we do not acknowledge that our rights come from a source outside ourselves - that our rights are inherent - then our rights our subject to the whims of man. If our rights are subject to the whims of man then they are nothing more than fictional constructs. They may as well not exist at all.

Marc2b -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 8:32:25 PM)
quote: beyond job requirements, what good reason would anyone have to own a full-auto firearm? Because sometimes it's fun to go out to the field in back and blow holes into things. Edited to add: Don't underestimate the "cooooool" factor in gun ownership.

Marc2b -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 8:40:29 PM)
quote: I'd much prefer it be the pothead. [:D] Agreed. The pothead will be too busy watching the Family Guy marathon on the Cartoon Network to be any real danger.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 9:22:20 PM)
Well, this went a lot better than I expected! For the most part, it's been a very civilized and well-reasoned discussion, and I've found it very informative. Thank you all. You've given me a lot to think about. I really think this is one of the most stimulating discussions I've seen here in quite a while, and I'm grateful to everyone who participated in good faith. I'm still not certain, though, exactly what I think. In my opinion, this is perhaps the most ambiguously worded amendment in the entire Constitution, and every time I read it I get a mental image of Madison and Jefferson, looking down with grimaces on their faces, saying, "Jesus, did we ever drop the ball on that one." What, exactly does the clause "A well-regulated militia" mean? I'm strongly inclined to think that the clause "shall not be infringed" should be interpreted to mean that no state or local law regulating the ownership or possession of firearms is constitutionally valid, but frankly I'm not at all comfortable with the logical extension of what that would mean. As Ken suggests, I think that at some point the debate will have to be settled with a new amendment that both modifies and clarifies the perceived intent of the 2nd. I think it's unlikely that I'll see it in my lifetime, and certainly not in the next decade. I think when it comes, it will be one of the most vehemently divisive issues to inflame this country since the 60s, and I'd just as soon not be around to watch it. So thanks again for everyone who's shared their thoughts thus far, and i look forward to reading what's yet to come.

Musicmystery -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 9:24:52 PM)
quote: I just wish that those in government would fight for our second amendment rights with the exact same zeal that they seem to have for "Civil Rights." Well popeye, quite a few haven't been all that wild about Civil Rights either...

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 9:24:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: beyond job requirements, what good reason would anyone have to own a full-auto firearm? Because sometimes it's fun to go out to the field in back and blow holes into things. Edited to add: Don't underestimate the "cooooool" factor in gun ownership. Damn straight. At the end of the day, that's a lot of what it comes down to - you press a button, there's an extremely loud noise, and if you're skilled enough and disciplined enough, a hundred meters away something blows up. It fuckin' rocks!

Marc2b -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 9:34:04 PM)
quote: Damn straight. At the end of the day, that's a lot of what it comes down to - you press a button, there's an extremely loud noise, and if you're skilled enough and disciplined enough, a hundred meters away something blows up. It fuckin' rocks! And every law abiding citizen has the God given, Constitutionally protected right to do so. I'm not being facetious (well, not entirely). I love Rednecks. I admire their utterly shameless lack of sophistication. POW! POW! POW! POW! POW! POW! "Whoa Nelly! Ju see what it done to that old TV, Earl? That sum bitch just imploded!"

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 9:35:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Hiya Panda, I had decided to stay out of gun control debates, but just for you I have a brief comment. If we look at any of the rights given to us via the Constitution, they must all be balanced with public welfare. This is why speech is restricted that would cause an unnecessary panic, or why the press does not have the right to publish something that would weaken our national security. So applying those same safeguards, it is not unreasonable for laws that regulate those that wish to be part of a militia (gun owners), as long as they are still able to own guns (thus not infringing upon that right). I am also one of those "from my cold dead hand" kind of guys, but I support background checks, keeping guns out of the hands of violent felons and the mentally unstable, as well as required safety course with certification. With these in place I also support the right to carry a gun where ever I wish. Thanks, Orion.... I agree with you completely. As a gun owner, I am perfectly willing to pass reasonable background checks and take rigorous proficiency tests to demonstrate both my personal responsibility and my technical competence. And once having demonstrated those things, I want to be left alone to exercise my right to keep and bear. My family is originally from the ranch country of Montana, and I lived in western Montana for quite some time as a young man. Open carry was as much a part of the daily routine as walking down the street. I never saw a problem with it, and would not have any qualms at all about living in a society where everyone who wanted to could wear a sidearm anywhere, anytime, as long as they could meet the legal requirements.

GoDolphins -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 10:53:33 PM)
As someone with a history degree who had to study the Constitution a lot, this topic caught my attention. The fact is the Founding Fathers were almost unanimous in their belief that the people should be allowed to own guns. There were 2 reasons for this. Number one, most people back then fed themselves, and for those who lived in rural areas, which was the majority of the population, part of that involved hunting. The second reason was the bigger reason though. The British had taken arms from the colonists prior to the Revolution and stored them in silos to prevent the colonists from rebelling (or try to anyway, obviously it didn't work). In fact, the battles at Concord and Lexington in Massachussetts that ultimately started the Revolution started because British troops went to seize firearms from some farmers in Massachussetts and they were tipped off--you know, Paul Revere and the lanterns and "the British are coming" and all that. So the Founding Fathers saw a direct correlation between government seizing firearms and tyranny. Now, would they have the same views if they saw the kinds of weapons we have today? It's impossible to tell of course. That's why I'm a believer that we should have some regulations on owning firearms, but outright banning them, as some cities have done, should probably remain unconstitutional. I don't really think the average citizen needs a rocket launcher but don't like the idea of the government banning handguns. If they're going to do that they better assign a bodyguard to protect us all because the police can't be everywhere at once, and I don't really think we want them to, but that's another discussion for another time. One other thing to note here. Someone early on the first page mentioned a discussion about whether or not the 2nd amendment refers to the National Guard or not. The National Guard wasn't formed until the early 1900's (don't know the exact date). So that is clearly not what the Constitution meant. The National Guard was formed to try to regulate the militia, which I think would have sent up all kinds of red flags to many of the Founding Fathers, but I can't say that for sure. The militia, at the very least, was not ever supposed to be government-run though.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875