Posted on 06/16/2004 8:42:31 PM PDT by TERMINATTOR
We may have to just agree to disagree. They had quite recently used their private weapons in war against their own oppressive government. To ignore this use, you seem to choose your own blinders.
You're correct, the second amendment wasn't "required". Don't forget that the BOR was an afterthought (ratified two years after the signing of the U.S. Constitution) -- there were those who thought that a BOR wasn't necessary, in that the federal government only had defined powers and it was not in the federal government's power to restrict speech, religion, guns, etc.
So, to address your question, there was nothing unusual about the second amendment being added -- no more so than any of the other amendments in the BOR.
"I know of no other instance where an explanatory clause to a particular enumeration of a right has been alleged to limit that right."
True. But its presence, and its military wording (keep and bear arms), has been construed by the courts as having a distinct and unique relationship to a militia. "Possess and carry guns and sharp, pointy things" might have been better.
Just the opposite.
My point is that I'm sure this was on their mind when they wrote the second amendment. That the newly formed federal government was not to infringe their RKBA because they needed to arms to secure a free state.
I'm saying that the other uses of arms (hunting, personal and home protection, sport) were simply taken for granted. They didn't see a need to add those uses.
The courts have twisted the second amendment to mean that the only use for arms is in relation to a well regulated militia. It is the courts who have distorted and limited the meaning of the second amendment.
The people who pushed for it - it's safe enough to conclude - thought otherwise. Therefore, their views as to its meaning and scope are entitled to some degree of consideration.
So let's follow the logic. You're saying that the purpose of the amdendment was to protect the people's right to form a militia. And at #515 you implied that the reason for that protection was so that Congress would be able to use the militia to fulfill the purposes of the original militia clause, not to protect against tyrannical government. My question to you is why the people pushing for the amendment felt that the security of a free state would be threatened absent such an amendment, given that the Constitution already contained a militia clause? Were they just hallucinating a fear that had no rational basis at all?
But its presence, and its military wording (keep and bear arms), has been construed by the courts as having a distinct and unique relationship to a militia.
Unfortunate as that is. That just points to a much deeper problem, which is that too many people just accept whatever the courts say about the Constitution. See tagline.
"Possess and carry guns and sharp, pointy things" might have been better.
How about "keep and bear arms in defense of one's home, one's neighbors, and one's country"? One thing that's clear is that the Founders didn't anticipate how ignorant this country would become about what they were writing.
First of all, thank God for the BOR. I don't know where we'd be without them.
The militia clause in the U.S. Constitution dealt with calling forth and arming the militia "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". Article I, Section 8, said nothing about the people having their own arms, or the people using those arms to protect their state.
I think the amendment was written to prevent a tyrannical government from disarming the people, and only arming them to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions".
The big problem was the creation of a standing army and the formation of the reserves and the National guard. There are no "state militias" anymore, and that makes the court's interpretations ludicrous.
For example, in Miller, the court ruled that evidence wasn't presented to show that a shotgun was an allowable military weapon. Yet the 1994 AWB disallowed military-style weapons because they were.
Uh-oh. No more hunting? No more shooting ranges? Competition?
Gun grabber.
Anti-federalist Mason:"This power is necessary; but we ought to guard against danger. If ever they attempt to harass and abuse the militia, they may abolish them, and raise a standing army in their stead. There are various ways of destroying the militia. A standing army may be perpetually established in their stead. I abominate and detest the idea of a government, where there is a standing army. The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless — by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them, &c....
Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man,[1] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. "
Federalist Marshall: [But]"if Congress neglect our militia, we can arm them ourselves. Cannot Virginia import arms? Cannot she put them into the hands of her militia-men? "
"I know of no other instance where an explanatory clause to a particular enumeration of a right has been alleged to limit that right. "
I find this division of debate into "collective" and "individual" RKBA senseless. There is no problem with the Second Amendment protecting both the state militias and a personal RKBA- just as it reads. Militias generally used both personal and government supplied arms.
It's for the children.
bumpkin
bigger bumpkin
This all comes back to mrsmith's contention that lack of explicit powers granted to the Feds to enforce the BoR somehow means that they don't apply to the States.
There are other things in the Constitution that the States are held to which are not explicitly spelled out as to who should enforce them.
Thus, we get into the whole sticky mess of implied powers, which is where governments always seem to pound the boundaries.
Yep. We always "get back" to mrsmiths, paulsens, inquests, [or any other 'States Rights' goofball at FR], contentions that any power in our Constitution not specifically prohibited to the States is theirs to wield; ---- irregardless of every principle of individual liberty this Country stands upon.
To their messy minds, the authoritarian, 'majority rule' State is always politically correct.
- It's a "sticky mess", - because to them, - that mess is a political advantage. -- It advances their cause.
FR's States Rights crowd loves it when anyone implies that our Constitution is not explicit as to its principles, since it's those principles that they really hate.
huge bumpkin
I reposted that comment because none of you clowns were able to respond to the charges in it.
You keep chatting here as if your support for the CA assault weapons prohibition is yesterdays news, and that the authoritarian, 'majority rule' State is always politically correct.
Yall need to get a life, and stop pretending to be conservatives.
And you're proving beyond a doubt that you have far less of a life than any of us.
Yall need to get a life, and stop pretending to be conservatives.
There's nothing to respond to. It's just one delusion after another. Face it, we'll never be politically correct enough for you.
Anyone can read the words of support you clowns have written on this thread for both fed & state AWB's.
Pointing them out is not a delusion on my part, but denying that you wrote them is sure weird & delusional on your part.
And you're proving beyond a doubt that you have far less of a life than any of us.
Bizarre claim, seeing all of you spend a lot of time here, arguing against the Constitution that I am pleased to defend.
Yes, I do invite anyone to read this thread. They'll find out very quickly who's acting like a clown, and that nobody has been supporting any AWBs, least of all at the federal level.
Bizarre claim, seeing all of you spend a lot of time here, arguing against the Constitution that I am pleased to defend.
It's not a bizarre claim at all. You're clamoring for attention, as anyone can see. And the only thing you're defending is your own ego.
Unless you're going to post anything substantive, then take your own advice and get a life. If you're just going to keep repeating the same delusional claims, then I'll just let you keep mumbling to yourself.
Here's the last "substantive" exchange we had, hotshot. I wrote:
_______________________________________
"Your quote applies to Congress, as the 16th made clear."
Let's see: Article I, Section 9, passed 1788. Amendment 16, passed 1913. You failed.
356 inquest
Idiotic point.
It's meaning was clear before the 16th made it even more clear, even to you. You lose.
If it's clear that that prohibition on power didn't apply to the states,
Some prohibitions apply to States. The one you quoted from Art I, Sec. 9 didn't.
then it's equally clear that your claim that "Neither the Feds nor the States were to have powers prohibited by the Constitution" is dead wrong.
It's only 'dead wrong' in the flawed logic of your imagination. -tpaine-
I know, I know, it's just a flesh wound. 449 -inquest- _____________________________________________
That line at #449 was the beginning of this present series of your petty mumblings. -- Now get lost.
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.