Posted on 09/30/2014 7:45:01 AM PDT by rktman
The Supreme Court has always in every instance been right? This crom a Constitutionalist?
Strict Construction. Plain Meaning. Original Intent. These are the acid test of conservatism in the USA. The 2A says what it says. It does not mean what someone, even a Justice, 30 or 100 or 250 years later would like it to mean to suit a "different" time. If you want the Constitution to mean something different from what it says then you must Amend the Constitution and actually change what it says by the means provided for in the Constitution itself, not by Assertion.
Alright, so you didn’t really mean this:
“One exception permits others and negates the Amendment.”
But more like this: one exception (that isn’t explicitly stated somewhere in the Constitution) negates the Amendment. Is that right?
Yes, you do; I neglected to include that option.
You’re right. The Constitution doesn’t actually say what it says. There is a privilege for some arms some times some places. Maybe. Depends on what a judge thinks might be appropriate.
Wow. I haven’t made a single claim about the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, I’ve just been asking you to clarify statements that you made.
So you literally have created a straw man out of thin air to attack me. Why is that exactly?
I am willing to accept this interpretation of 2A as having been understood at the time to prohibit states from limiting access to arms. If documentation can be provided that this was indeed the understanding then, rather than our project into the past of what we think/believe they should have intended.
Unfortunately, my understanding is that lots and lots of states passed and enforced gun control laws, even knife control laws, in the period prior to the civil war. AFAIK, there was no argument made at the time that these laws were unconstitutional because they violated 2A.
But, as I said, I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.
Fine. Just provide some evidence that Original Intent was for 2A to be applied to the states. The Founders were very, very nervous about any restriction on the powers of their states.
Either the Constitution means what it says or it means nothing at all. Either it is a solid framework for the governance of a free society or it represents nothing more than the wishful thinking of a bunch of guys a long time ago.
I am a believer in Original Intent. This means we must attempt to understand what the original intent of those who wrote and, more importantly, ratified the Constitution was.
I found a really interesting article on the subject of how the Founders viewed weapons and their regulation, and on how the early states addressed the situation. It seems clear that there was disagreement even at the time over whether there existed a general right for individuals to be armed.
One of the more interesting POVs was the one that only arms suitable for military use were protected. Applying this criteria today, actual assault rifles could not be prohibited, but handguns could be.
At any rate, I think it is foolish to discuss Original Intent without determining to the extent we can what that intent was. Not jumping to the conclusion that expressions meant the same then as now, in a very different world.
Anyway, I recommend the article for consideration. The author does considerable sneering at both the pro and anti gun groups of today for distorting the facts of history, which I think is quite appropriate.
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr
The military doesn’t use handguns? What is that .38 Special I carried in the AF? Is it not a handgun?
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html
Title is way larger than the article contents.
Anybody who has ever actually been in combat will agree that handguns are not particularly valuable in that role.
True but they are military weapons. SO are short shotguns.
Ask Sgt York about that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.