Posted on 07/06/2007 4:34:01 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
~~~~ We, as a society, decide which rights we will protect --- We can choose not to protect your rights --- . If and when a majority of the people decide that we should, then we will. Given that we're a self-governing nation, there's nothing to stop the majority from deciding this. ~~~
That may be, but the militia were not what you’d call “well regulated” in the manner that you are referring to.
Actually, at the time of writing of the BOR, the term "regulated" had a much broader meaning, which in modern language means something much closer to "smoothly functioning".
Remember, we were at the very beginning of the industrial revolution. Mechanisms which seem commonplace to us today, were just beginning to be seen.
Pendulum clocks had regulators, and so did steam engines. The purpose of the regulator on a steam engine was to keep it running at a constant speed.
Whom among us is willing to put forth the proposition that challenges God?
~~~ California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms. ~~~~
Some communitarians here agree. -- They claim:
~~~ California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms. ~~~~
The definition of "the people" differs, depending on the subject -- the Founders used the phrase to mean "the particular group".
If they meant every individual they would use the term "citizens", or "persons" or "he/him".
As an example, Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution reads (in part): "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states ..."
There, "the people" only referred to white, male, citizen landowners -- not everyone.
The fifth amendment refers to "person", protecting the individual right of everyone.
f Parker is the long-awaited “clean” case, one reason may be that lawyers for the National Rifle Association—who helped steer the legal strategy of the plaintiffs and backed them financially—have learned from earlier defeats, and crafted the case to maximize the chances of Supreme Court review.Stuff and nonsense. Parker is a "clean" case because the lawyers from CATO worked hard to make it such. The NRA has done everything possible to keep it from being heard - from trying to take over the case, to filing parallel cases that include stacks of irrelevant issues that seem to have been intentionally designed to give the courts a reason to dismiss on other grounds, to trying to get Congress to repeal the ban rendering the case moot. The NRA does, finally, seem to have gotten on board with Parker, but the streng6h of the case has nothing to do with the NRA.
Actually, at the time of writing of the BOR, the term 'regulated' had a much broader meaning, which in modern language means something much closer to 'smoothly functioning'.
CurlyDave
"-- A "well-regulated" militia is not a prohibited militia but one that is well drilled.
Even those who read the Second Amendment as a "collective" rather than an individual right on the basis of this preface concede--indeed their theory requires them to insist--that the power to regulate the militia that the Constitution elsewhere confers upon Congress does not include the power to forbid or prohibit the militia. --"
The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1419654/posts
I’ve never understood why there is any question in the wording of the 2nd Amendment.
This is in a document known as “The Bill of Rights,” which was designed by the founders to protect state and individual rights from encroachment by the federal government.
There are 2 parts to the amendment. Only one of those 2 parts directly addresses a right. So that it the “main” part of the amendment.
The words “people” and “state” are used in the Bill of Rights. They are NOT interchangeable. If they were, there would be no reason to use both words, or to make a distinction between the two, as can be seen in the 10th Amendment.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The first part of the Amendment is a justification for the second. It’s that simple.
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS decided that “Congress shall make no law” doesn’t really mean “Congress shall make no law” either...
Mark
That is an excellent explication of the prefatory clause of the 2nd A. I wasn't a good enough student in English to say whether the syntax of the 2nd A is tortured or not but the logic is straightforward and direct and you have succinctly nailed it. Quite simply, there is only one way the sentence makes sense. Cultural/social/linguistic shifts have not altered that.
...if they have to define everything--down to what the meaning of "is" is.
This is what it boils down to: do you analyze the law as it was written, in the context it was written, with the meaning it was written, or do you believe in "emanations" and "penumbra" and changing meaning over time and interpreting it in light of international law, etc, etc, etc.
I cannot for the life of me understand these people who believe that the Constitution is a living, breathing document open to constant reinterpretation. It means what the authors intended it to mean, period
Everywhere else in the Constitution and Bill of Rights where the words "the people" is used, it is meant as an individual right. How can it suddenly mean a state right when used in the Second?
I'm not a scholar of 18th Centuryese but that statement seems rather unambiguous to me.
6 of my family members just got back from a 12 day trip to Israel. Every one of them is a hard core supporter of gun control, and pretty darned liberal. I'm pretty much the "black sheep" of the family, due to my views, especially on gun control.
While we were looking at photos they took, there were people with M16s in nearly every photo. The bus driver and tour guides had M16s slung over their shoulders. They said how weird it was with all these people wearing guns over there. How there were these young kids in shorts and t-shirts with guns, and how these "cute little army girls" all carried guns. One cousin remarked "I don't think that those guns were really loaded." I looked him in the eye and said "of course they're loaded. They might not have a round chambered, but you can bet that the magazines were fully loaded." He said he didn't think so, so I asked, "why not?" His response was, "well, with all those guns around, I sure wouldn't start up any trouble." My final response to him was, "What use is an unloaded weapon when someone starts shooting at you? Do you think that a terrorist would be put off by an unloaded gun? This isn't some game, those 'cute little army girls' are in the military, they're soldiers, and they may very well be called on to kill or lay down their lives for their people, and even for you if you're over there when the next war breaks out. A major part of your tour guides and bus driver's job is to defend you from terrorists. And that's done with a loaded gun."
At that point he, and the rest of my relatives who had been in Israel got these sick looks on their faces.
Mark
The communitarians among us insist that Congress or State legislators have the power to define "the people" depending on the how prohibitive they want the "law" to be.
Did you ask him why he doesn't think that same principle would work here in the states?
Does it say the right of the militia to keep a bear arms shall not be infringed?
Does it say the right of the state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
Does it say the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
I take it that it never occurred to your relatives that being in Isreal meant that they could have been blown to bits or shot to ribbons at any moment?!? What an amazing ability people have for constructing a world of their own and thinking of it as reality. Did they think there is one Isreal for newsclips of ME conflict and another Isreal for tourists?
BTTT!
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.