Framers' intent still hotly debated

ARIZONA DAILY STAR ^ | 06.04.2006 | Ann Brown

[neverdem]

IMHO, it seems to me that the 14th Amendment trumps the argument that the 2nd Amendment needs to be "incorporated" by a specific decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.

[neverdem]

BANG!

[JamesP81]

The framers understood that the document would be modified over time if it was to remain relevant.

Typical lib BS.

[Restorer]

The framers understood that the document would be modified over time if it was to remain relevant.

Which was why they carefully spelled out the procedures by which it would be modified.

Hooray for the dead Constitution!

[Puppage]

Sooooooo, The Bill of Rights....Of The People, By The People, For The People.....all 10 amendments that make up The Bill of Rights...EVERY ONE EXCEPT THAT ONE???

My arse.

[JamesP81]

It's simple: the 2nd amendment details two thoughts. The one we are most familiar with is the right to keep and bear arms part. Which is absolutely accurate. The other part pertains to a state militia. Here's one that will really make the libs scream: the National Guard does not qualify as a state militia. The National Guard is under the command of government officials. In the legal tradition of the Framers, this makes it a standing army. The defining characteristic of the militia is that it does not answer to any elected or appointed government official.

[beltfed308]

"No one has ever described the Constitution as a marvel of clarity, and the Second Amendment is perhaps one of the worst drafted of all its provisions," noted Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law

Shall not be infringed is pretty clear. And this guy went to law school? Sheesh!

[neverdem]

I hope you read the whole article. That concluding remarks don't strike me as liberal.

[2harddrive]

It is clear to anyone who understands English syntax. Period. Let's put the Second Amendment FIRST!!!

[E. Pluribus Unum]

While the topic is clear, the amendment is fraught with ambiguity and has been subject to conflicting interpretations and often acrimonious debate.

Not among constitutional scholars, even the most anti-gun of whom concede that the founders meant exactly what they said with the words "shall not be infringed."

It's only unclear to people who wish to disregard it.

[JamesP81]

I was referring to the author's implication of what the constitution is. The libs usually say that it's a 'living document'. I suspect the author may have been trying to say a similar thing, without actually saying it.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

"Murky language," indeed.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[Puppage]

Glicksman: The only U.S. Supreme Court case I'm aware of is "U.S. v. Miller," which held that it was a collective, not an individual, right.

Oh, it did NOT

The indictment alleged that on 18 April 1938, Jack Miller and Frank Layton transported a double-barreled 12 gauge shotgun – with barrels shorter than 18" – between Claremont, Oklahoma and Siloam Springs, Arkansas. Said shotgun had not been registered pursuant to Section 1132c of Title 26 United States Code (National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1237). Neither Miller nor Layton had, "in their possession astamped-affixed written order for said firearm as provided by Section 1132c…"2

[JamesP81]

I hope you read the whole article. That concluding remarks don't strike me as liberal.

Maybe I was a little bit hard on him. I've been wrong before...

[Puppage]

No, I wasn't refering to your post....I was refering to the article itself.

Pete

[Rummyfan]

While the topic is clear, the amendment is fraught with ambiguity and has been subject to conflicting interpretations and often acrimonious debate.

Stop right there! It is neither ambiguous nor does it require deep interpretations. The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. Only libs could make that ambiguous. 'Course, they're not sure of the meaning of 'is'.

[Lou L]

One of the strengths of the Constitution is its inherent flexibility. The framers understood that the document would be modified over time if it was to remain relevant.

If the framers truly believed the Constitution was supposed to be "flexible," why did they go through all the trouble of ratifying it in the first place? They could've just said, "oh, we'll figure out the detais later, as we decide what's relevant!"

I agree that there may be limits to certain rights, but while the Framers' never anticipated Blackberrys and cell phones, they never anticipated the level of government intrusion in our lives, either. If they had, they might've doubled the number of states' rights!

[NY.SS-Bar9]

Typical lib BS.

No, here, the author is correct. He makes an error however with this line:

One of the strengths of the Constitution is its inherent flexibility

The constitution is a set of inflexible laws which may be amended through a formal and difficult process.

[BenLurkin]

"firearms have a pivotal role in societal violence"

True to the extent that they PROTECT the good people from being the victims of bad people.