|
joether -> RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment (4/15/2014 8:45:22 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
One thing I puzzle over regarding the Second Amendment is the prefatory "militia" clause. It came from the pens of men who were exacting and economical with their words, so I'm guessing it's more than a literary flourish. And there's nothing like it in the rest of the Bill of Rights. Any thoughts on why the founders yoked, verbally at least, the right to bear arms to the need for a militia?
The idea of the first half of the amendment was to explain the 'who' and 'why'. The Militia was designed as not a 'throw-together-group' but of one that had a command structure, rules of conduct and penalties if a member got out of line. Many of the penalties of that time would be considered harsh under today's standards (i.e. flogging). So this organization, generally run by the locals was set up to handle the job of 'police station' and defend against external threats. There existed a common agreement to aid other militia of other towns or the state itself in a time of need. Either as a larger 'policing action' or defending from an even larger invading force. They were also called up to handle disasters of every kind and maintain some level of order.
The second half of the amendment was to handle two situations the founders thought important to said militias. The first is that individuals, in good standing with the militia, could keep their arms on their person. Meaning, their arms and gear could be at their home or work location and ready to go if the need arose. At that time, the belief was keeping all the arms in one location (i.e. an arsenal) would prove to be a very tempting target for an enemy. Blowing it up would render the good people of that area more or less defenseless. So, the desire to keep those arms disperse upon the population would be of benefit to the citizens. The second part was equally important. That the arms of the militia could not be surrendered except by the very members themselves as a whole. Meaning an actual vote to surrender the arms would be made by those within the militia, rather then by some outside entity. The belief here, was of a tyrannical government ordering a militia to surrender its arms, could be resisted.
Over the time frame of many decades, this amendment was changed from being something based on the militia to individual ownership of firearms. The founding fathers viewed an individual, using their firearm for say hunting duck, was not using the firearm under the second. In fact, how that firearm would be used, in a manner different from militia duty, was left up to the individual state. So basically 'organized defenses' of militias would be protected under the 2nd amendment, all other issues with firearms would be handled under the 10th amendment.
You persist in this bizarre interpretation in the face of the words of the people who wrote
the 2nd who clearly disagree with you. I have shown you this in the past and you have
dismissed it as "hiding behind" their words, pretty good place to hide though isn't it?
And nobody has argued that felons should be allowed arms as you implied with your
hoodlum comment.
Its not a bizarre interpretation. Its one your not familiar with. Its one you have not contemplated fully. I understand your view on the subject matter. And I can respect that view of yours; not a wise one for the long term. In both cases, they are beliefs. There is a numerous amount of books, speeches, and journalistic quality information out there stating both concepts are true. I've already stated who gains with your viewpoint. Its not the individual American, unfortunately. The view I give, means you, I, everyone else with a firearm, are 'enrolled' into our local militias. We'll be marching, working together, and sometimes shooting for target practice. Heck, we might actually put a dent in the obesity rate in this country!
Which is a strong group of people? Those that don't really know each others, nor any reason to associate, and live in a metaphorical political chasm that separates everyone from each other? A group of people, together in common purpose, knowing each other, and behaving like a good community of individuals? In the old days, people got together due to being part of the militia. Neighbors got to know each other. Today, its not uncommon for those living within 300 feet in some densely packed residential building to not know any of their neighbors. A people whom are divided and distrustful (for lack of knowing and understand) are easy to conquer.
All I'm asking, BamaD, is to consider it. The difference between the wise person and the religious fanatic, is the first can consider options, while the second can never deviate from their path (even if they will step into quicksand and die from it). With a debate like this one, does it not pay to be wise rather than mindless devotion 'to the cause'?
|
|
|
|
