Conversely, if you want off my ping-list, let me know.
And my apologies for any redundant pings.
If you're looking for the standard FR "bang list", please click HERE.
Posted on 12/12/2007 2:03:04 PM PST by neverdem
When the Bill of Rights was ratified this week (Dec. 15) in 1791, the Founders never dreamed that centuries later the Second Amendment would become so controversial. To them, “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,” was fairly straightforward language.
How wrong they were, as evidenced by the Supreme Court’s recent decision to rule on whether Washington, D.C.’s strict firearms law violates the Constitution, “a decision,” The Washington Post wrote, “that will raise the politically and culturally divisive issue of gun control just in time for the 2008 elections.”
The main controversy is over the phrase “A well regulated militia,” and its relationship to the statement “the people’s right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Gun-control advocates believe this language means that if you don’t belong to a “regulated militia” your right to own a gun can be “infringed.”
Gun-rights advocates counter by noting that the amendment does not grant a right; it recognizes a right already granted. The amendment does not say, “The people have the right to keep and bear arms.”
It says, “the (already established) right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” And they have a point. As even the Supreme Court has acknowledged, the right to own firearms precedes the Bill of Rights.
Gun advocates also note that because the amendment gives the right to bear arms to the “people,” not the states, claiming that this right is dependent on anything the states do or don’t do — including forming militias — is ludicrous. After all, the Bill of Rights mentions no specific rights that the states possess, but several the people do.
Two additional points: In 1791, most state militias did not give guns to militiamen when militias were formed. Militiamen brought their guns with them — from home. Indeed, the amendment says they can “keep” their firearms, not merely “bear” them during military service.
Finally, (my hero) James Madison’s original Second Amendment language was as follows: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country.” Written that way, he is saying that if the people don’t have the right to arms, there can’t be a militia. That Congress reversed the order does not change Madison’s intent.
Granted, all constitutional rights, including free speech and gun ownership, are subject to reasonable restrictions — you can’t yell “Fire” in a crowded theater, and felons can’t possess firearms. But the general right to own firearms is constitutionally protected. We will see what the Supreme Court thinks.
Bruce Kauffmann’s e-mail address is bruce@history lessons.net
I agree, it raises my hackles also! The “fire in a crowded theater” argument seems to always be thrown out without explaining why you should not shout FIRE ! in a crowded theater unless of course there really is a fire. In the latter case, it would be your duty to sound the alarm.
Semper Fi
An Old Man
You ought to be confused. Even Hillery Clinton has the right to keep and bear arms.
"Even if the person is an illegal in this country, we protect his inalienable right to life."
We are the guys in the white hats! Up until we send them packing, they can depend upon us for three squares and a cot in the federal pen.
Semper Fi
An Old Man
An inalienable right to keep and bear arms? That's the question.
And if it's a God-given inalienable right, like life or liberty, why isn't it given to 3-year-olds and foreign visitors and the insane? What, God doesn't like them?
Semper Fi
An Old Man
Neither does the kid's grandfather, the one is also a direct descendant of D.C.
i am so tired of the ‘fire in the crowded theatre’ bit...
free speech allows that... intelligent people, those that reason, will see there is no smoke, or flames and know the ‘yeller’ is an idiot...
then the yeller should suffer the consequences of his actions...
regulations are coming, the proliferation of shootings to get famous will see to that.
teeman
Poll shows rifts among minority groups, but hope for future
The Pope condemns the climate-change scaremongers
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Conversely, if you want off my ping-list, let me know.
And my apologies for any redundant pings.
If you're looking for the standard FR "bang list", please click HERE.
It will be one of those narrow-focused rulings we get from the Supremes.
At the time, “regulate” was understood to mean “cause to function well” as in: members had appropriate equipment, knew how to use it efficiently, and were trained to work with others well. Used that way today, you would be expected to buy your own M16 & ammo, practice with it, and periodically train with your local squad. This in no way infringes on your right to own what you want and use it responsibly.
Somehow the term “regulate” has been twisted into the modern meaning “suppress, interfere and harrass insofar as outright prohibition cannot be achieved” - not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Word games? The U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court treat rights differently depending on whether they are inalienable, fundamental, or natural.
An inalienable right (like life, liberty or property) can only be taken by individual due process (ie., a court of law). It cannot be taken by a majority vote in the legislature.
Words mean things. You're throwing them around like confetti.
How is that different than what the DC Circuit ruled? In other words, how is this ruling different than if the U.S.Supreme Court declined to hear the case and let stand the DC Circuit decision?
people for some reason don’t understand that there are already laws in place regarding firearm equivalent to yelling “fire” in a theatre.
there are already laws against assault, murder, menacing..
Absolutely correct! In fact, to amplify your thought, if the right to life is inalienable, then the right to defend (or keep) that same life must also be inalienable!!
Gosh. And somehow the phrase "to keep and bear arms" has been twisted into the modern meaning of "keep with" and "carry" instead of "maintain and take into battle". But that's OK I guess. Living constitution and all that.
Even if the term "regulate" was abused the way you say (which it's not), the term still only applies to the Militia ("A well regulated Militia") not to the the right of the people.
YES!!!!
The difference is it will then be precedent in the entire country, instead of just in that federal district.....
there are already laws against assault, murder, menacing..
EXACTLY!!! Those are the laws we need enforced, not the existing gun control laws, The existing gun control laws need to be struck down as unconstitutional!!!!
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.