Posted on 01/18/2005 11:25:23 AM PST by newsgatherer
If you want to draw the line, Amend the Constitution. That is what the process is there for.
"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."
Please note that the Civil War sort of over rode this idea pretty thoroughly.
And why? Because the Southern States wanted out of the above agreement.
Stop trying to relate it to private property and arms. It doesn't support your contention.
“But you see, that is where we disagree. The founders DID draw such a line. They drew it in their debate and in the laws they wrote. You just do not like the line drawn so you ignore it.
They wrote of muskets, swords, etc and drafted specific laws about such things in reference to the Secons Amendment but they did no such a thing about Cannon.
Quote please. The only one I've been able to find that mentions anything other than "arms" mentions "and all the terrible implemtns of the soldier". Not too mention "destructive devices" like fully armed battleships.”
The Militia Act 1792:
“I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.”
Nothing on Cannon
Blackstone, in commenting on the English Common law from which our 2nd is derived is explained by our Justice dept as follows:
“Blackstone explained the subject's right of having arms as "a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." (186) By tying the right to the natural - and thus individual and pre-political - right of self-defense, he recognized a deeper foundation than its declaration and enactment in 1689 and confirmed that the right existed independently of any bearing of arms in service to the militia, a subject that he did not mention in connection with the right. (187)”
The English right is a right derived from self defense.
Samuel Adams wrote, in the prelude to the revolution, as described by the Justice dept:
“A subsequent article by Adams recounted the English Revolution and then quoted both of Blackstone's primary discussions of the right to arms. Adams attacked critics of the "late vote of this town, calling upon the inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defence," as insufficiently "attend[ing] to the rights of the constitution." (201) The New York Journal Supplement reiterated this argument:”
Again, weapons suitable for personal defense, not cannon.
Madison wrote
“[I]n that may be secured the right to keep arms for Common and Extraordinary Occations such as to secure ourselves against the wild Beast and also to amuse us by fowling and for our Defence against a Common Enemy[.] [Y]ou know to learn the Use of arms is all that can Save us from a forighn foe that may attempt to subdue us[,] for if we keep up the Use of arms and become acquainted with them we Shall allway be able to look them in the face that arise up against us[.] (293)”
Covers self defense and fowling. Seems to me cannon might be overkill for the purpose.
One of the first descriptions of the right in Law was written by George Tucker in 1803 when he wrote:
“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. (320)”
Again, arms for self defense, not cannon.
Henry Tucker in 1831 wrote:
“The right of bearing arms - which with us is not limited and restrained by an arbitrary system of game laws as in England; but is practically enjoyed by every citizen, and is among his most valuable privileges, since it furnishes the means of resisting as a freeman ought, the inroads of usurpation. (339)”
The note on Game law is important as the English used the game laws to disarm the public and because one can understand that the types of arms being discussed always under the second amendment, were small arms suitable for personal defense or hunting and not cannons.
I could go on. How about a few quotes referencing the 2nd and cannon????
"I favor the 'Free State' scheme. A direct challenge to fed gun laws by a State would eventually have to win."
If by that you mean the move to NH by 20,000 libertarians over the next few years, I agree, a good idea but a poor choice of states.
For info NH had 17,000 immigrants from Mass last year alone. Even if all 20,000 do move in, the liberals from Mass will overwhelm them. Look at the election results over the last few years. Every election pushes the envelope in NH further to the left.
They should have picked a conservative state, one that needed just a nudge instead of trying to hold back the tide.
"And why? Because the Southern States wanted out of the above agreement."
No, because they were unsuccessful making the idea moot.
Unless you're a left-wing rag like the NY Slimes spewing forth all the false and malicious hateful things about G.W. Bush, or any other Republican. Then it's anyting goes.
Freedom of speech ends where threatening death or incitement to riot begin.
Again, unless you're a leftist "News" anchor, or a communist "peace" group, then you can suggest G.W. Bush should be assasinated, or that our troops should shoot their officers. That kind of freedom is unlimited for the left, but not the right.
Freedom to move my fist ends where my neighbor's nose begins.
Unless you are a left-wing union thug assaulting some right-wing "wacko" peacefully protesting your National Socialist president.
While the boundary between citizen arms and nation arms is more difficult to nail down, it does not follow that we should therefore abandon all restrictions entirely.
I would just like to see the restrictions applied evenly to both sides of the political spectrum--but they are not.
Do I really need to go back and post all those quotes about ships again? I mean, its a bit redundant don't you think?
We do not require legislation telling us we can exercise a Right. That was never how it was supposed to work. Our US Right not only incorperates our own defense, but also that of defending our Nation in times of need, and of defending against usurpers. "Tree of Liberty" and all that. From Founders quotations already posted, it is pattently obvious that the Framers never imagined a scenario where "We the People" would be less well armed than our Government.
Your reasoning of course would have us fighting F-22's with .22's. This is obviously NOT what the Founders meant.
I would agree with that. I think the AWB -- as well as other anti-2nd Amendment legislation -- and the idea of publicly available nukes both violate the intentions of the founding fathers. A new amendment should further affirm the rights established by the 2nd amendment and establish a responsible limitation on the scope of the word "Arms", in light of the development of WMDs, etc. With such an amendment, all other existing legislation limiting those rights as they apply to non-criminal citizens should be explicitly repealed. Carve the line reasonably and deeply into the constitution so there can be no more legal wrangling on the issue.
I couldn't agree with you more.
The Right as it stands is just fine. You are welcome to try to Amend it though.
The right to keep and bear, as ot is worded, is absolute. I have a right to keep nuclear weapons in my garage. That does not provide me the financing to keep nuclear weapons in my garage, however.
You may not allow radioactivity from your nuclear weapons to leak onto someone else's property. NOT being facetious.
Much more to it that just going out and plopping a few million down on a low yeild tactical nuke.
Baloney. That's what the courts are for.
Lines are drawn for the first amendment (shouting "fire", slander, inciting violence). They can also be drawn for the second, the third, the fourth, and the rest without amending the constitution.
Get a clue...
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.