Posted on 12/16/2007 3:35:16 PM PST by An Old Man
As much as the ideologues and constitutional scholars enjoy it, the Second Amendment issue is only academic anyway. For there are tens of millions of handguns and long guns in private possession in the country, they don’t wear out quickly, and no legislation is going to get many of them back. Only still more oppressive government could accomplish that. Indeed, the more that government tries to outlaw guns, the more that people might see the need to keep them.
(Excerpt) Read more at projo.com ...
The issue is larger than guns. The issue is that if the liberals can nit pick at every word in a sentence until the normal meaning of the sentence is no longer universally understood, all of our constitution, laws and even traditions are going to be overturned.
For example, who would have thought that marriage had to be defined? Who thinks that even if we had a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman we would not be debating whether a man and a woman refers to actual physical sexual organs and not some broader meaning?
I'll believe that when I see Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy co-sponsor a bill to repeal Title 18, Section 922(o), the Brady Law, the Lautenberg Law and the '68 GCA. And then REALLY support it so that it passes. Same in the House for McCarthy and Pelosi.
While hope springs eternal, I'm not holding my breath.
That actually leaves me optimistic regarding the Heller case. If the Supremes negate the 2nd because "the People" is some amorphous, ill-defined "collective" wherein no individual may sue to protect his or her RKBA, then the EXACT same reasoning can be applied to any of the other Amendments in which the words "the People" appear. The Court knows this, and it is plainly unacceptable. Even Alan Dershowitz has said that the 2nd MUST protect individual rights if the rest of the BOR is to mean anything.
Even as I see and say it however, I'm not holding my breath either... ;-)
The underlying discussion and debate on the second amendment was about an individual right to keep and bear arms for personal protection?
Can you find one quote for me from the discussion and debate to back that up?
"I find it patently offensive that this argument continues."
It should stop once you find that quote.
The first element that supports the individual rights interpretation is the text of the amendment, itself: “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” There is no reason, in my view, to believe that this text should be interpreted as anything but an individual right.
It appears that there was fundamental agreement between the Federalists and the Anit-Federalists that the Federal government “should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry.” (Heritage Guide to the Constitution, pg 320). James Madison (in Federalist No.46) noted that the American citizenry was ‘armed’, in contrast to “almost every other nation.” Far from disparaging this circumstance, he writes that it is “the advantage” enjoyed bu Americans. Also from the Heritage Guide to the Constitution, on page 320: “...everyone agreed that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arsm, any more than it shoud have the power to abridge the freedon of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.” (These being individual rights, as well) This recognition lent support to the notion that the Second Amendment assured an individual’s right, despite the small body of case law subsequent to Miller, which was finally corrected in Emerson (United States v Emerson, 2001).
Certainly personal protection was promoted by virtue of being armed. That could be protection from other people, or from an intrusive government.
And I still find it offensive that this argument continues.
I agree. If the second amendment read, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, it's hard to read it any other way. Of course, that's not the way the second amendment reads, so that's a moot point.
"It appears that there was fundamental agreement between the Federalists and the Anit-Federalists that the Federal government “should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry.”
This is a conclusion reached by the author of the Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Since I don't have a copy of that particular book, you have me at a disadvantage. I have no idea what the author is referring to, who said it, or in what context it was said.
"James Madison (in Federalist No.46) noted that the American citizenry was ‘armed’, in contrast to “almost every other nation.”
Correct. Madison was referring to the citizen state Militia which no other country had. He was not talking about individuals using arms to defend themselves personally.
"everyone agreed that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arsm, any more than it shoud have the power to abridge the freedon of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.”
Now I'm questioning your source. The Bill of Right was not written that way. Yes, the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion was protected for all persons. But the right to keep and bear arms was only protected for "the people", a select group consisting of the enfranchised body politic. Women and children, for example, were excluded.
"Certainly personal protection was promoted by virtue of being armed. That could be protection from other people, or from an intrusive government."
I agree. But that right was protected by state constitutions, not the second amendment.
"And I still find it offensive that this argument continues."
What I find offensive is the number of supposedly intelligent people who do not know what document protects their gun rights -- and who don't want to know.
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.