About Gun Control

My seething mind | 22 Dec 08 | Moi

[A_perfect_lady]

Freepers, I just had a thought, and I wanted to record it before it died of loneliness. Perhaps this has already been addressed, but it just occurred to me in a flash of light while watching an old All In The Family episode on YouTube.

Here's the single little lightbulb that just went on over my head: It was the gun control episode, and Meathead is pointing out to Archie that the part of the 2nd amendment that reads "a well-regulated militia as being necessary to the security of a free State..." Meathead's point, and it's the point that has been made by many meatheads, is that the Founding Fathers meant we could have a standing militia, NOT that individuals could own weapons.

When pressed, most people who support this view will go on to state that the National Guard is our militia.

What just occurred to me (and again, I apologize if this has been canvassed extensively and I just never heard it) is that there are limits and regulations about who can join the Guard. You have to be within a certain age range. You have to be able-bodied. In other words, you can be excluded and discriminated against if you are too old, or in a wheelchair.... maybe even for things like asthma and a heart condition.

Now... HOW can it be Constitutional for a right to exist that is limited to people only of certain age and medical condition? Does any other right operate that way? None that I can think of.

Thoughts?

[andy58-in-nh]

With regard to liberals, nothing is ever going to "work" on them, not because they do not understand but because they do not wish to understand. Their minds are made up and they are thus unconcerned with facts, logic, meaning, precedent, or historical example.

They do not want people (meaning people other than those like themselves) to own guns. A person who owns a gun is a citizen, never a subject. The purpose of modern liberalism to to control the lives and property of others by claim of want or need. The plain language of the 2nd Amendment creates an individual right to self-defense because our Founders understood the dangers both of Federal power and of factionalism, and provided for the people to be able to defend themselves, their families, their businesses and their property.

Compare the liberal's treatment of gun rights with abortion. The latter has no foundation in the Constitution except for within the shadow of "privacy rights", which certainly exist. But the presence of a second life in pregnancy, and the question of when that life begins and ends is nowhere found in the Constitution. Such matters were always left to the states for decision - until Roe v. Wade destroyed that underpinning, and well, a few million lives along with it.

FYI: "Militia" has always been historically understood, as well as codified in the US Code to include all able-bodied citizens. The National Guard was not even created until 1911, I believe, and is considered only part of the "militia".

[A_perfect_lady]

What I’m saying is we shouldn’t even allow that “militia” to be part of the definition of who can own guns. Because able-bodied rules certain people out. Asthma? Heart condition? Paraplegic? Elderly? To even concede that the militia was the only intent of the Founding Fathers is to cede some ground.

[Little Ray]

The militia part is not part of the definition. It is a statement of the purpose of the Second Amendment. Translated out of the Early American Legalese the Second Amendment really says “Because we need a large, well equipped militia to help defend the country, the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” There is not a requirement to join the militia, just the goal of creating large pool of potential militia members.

The hoplophobes just try to use the militia part to confuse things.

I would be happier with something like:
“The right of the individual to self-defense being inalienable, the Federal Government and the Several States may not prevent the private citizen from owning, keeping and bearing the arms of their choice.”
But, I'm sure lawyers can twist hell out that, too.

[andy58-in-nh]

The challenge for 2nd Amendment supporters (like me) has always been the prefatory clause of the Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

The Supreme Court ruling in Heller not only explains the historical antecedents for the clause, but more importantly establishes that the operative clause of the Amendment - "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"— is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny.

One effect of this opinion is that 2nd Amendment supporters no longer need explain the individual right to keep and bear arms in light of the prefatory clause's reference to militias; the former (a right) was not intended to be dependent on the latter (a purpose).

[El Gato]

The plain language of the 2nd Amendment creates protects an individual right to self-defense

The right of self defense, and the right to arms, existed long before the Bill of Rights was written. The second amendment protects those rights, but did not create them.

In Jefferson's words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,..."

[andy58-in-nh]

Thank you: my error. You are absolutely correct. Our Constitution recognizes the liberties that are ours by the grace of God. Our government was instituted by men to protect freedom for ourselves and for future generations, even for those whose understanding might prove lacking and whose will would be insufficient to the task.

[smokingfrog]

[smokingfrog]

The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms