Posted on 03/16/2008 2:51:10 PM PDT by kiriath_jearim
Guns were an essential tool in frontier life when the United States was formed hundreds of years ago, and even today the right to carry them remains a fundamental part of the country's identity.
Hence the heated emotions surrounding an issue that comes before the Supreme Court this week -- how modern society should interpret gun rights that were written into the Second Amendment of the Constitution during a very different era.
The deadly impact of gun-toting criminals in recent years has made its way into the nation's conscience with a spate of gruesome mass shootings, particularly at schools and universities.
But the massacres, such as the nation's worst school rampage to date when a 23-year-old South Korean gunman at Virginia Tech University killed 32 people including himself last year, have largely failed to rouse any widespread movement against the right to bear arms.
Instead, the local press in Blacksburg, where the shootings occurred, focused on the opposite notion after the fact -- whether the killings could have been prevented or reduced if students or professors were allowed to carry guns in class.
America's love for guns "comes from the history and the geography of the nation, the fact that it was a very decentralized, sparsely populated frontier-dominated culture without a sense of a sovereign government," said William Vizzard, a professor of criminal justice at California State University.
The reason that even some liberal Americans will not take up the cause for abolition of guns is a relic of that older time, a "political cultural trend from the frontier society that was very self-reliant," Vizzard said.
When the first colonists arrived on what are now US shores, it was an every man -- or at least every group -- for himself mentality that ensured the strong survived and which fueled settlers' fights with Native Americans already on the land, the French arriving from Canada, and the Spanish moving up from Florida.
And once the United States gained its independence from Britain the founding fathers determined that an armed population was the best way to resist takeover by dictatorship or aristocracy, according to Eugene Volokh, law professor at University of California Los Angeles.
The United States' third president Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence of 1776 and one of the main authors of the US Constitution of 1787, believed firmly in this principle.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own land," Jefferson wrote. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
And the Second Amendment to the Constitution, added in 1791, assures that: "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."
According to Justice Joseph Story, the "right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers," he wrote in an academic paper.
However, he noted that "among the American people there is a growing indifference to any sense of militia discipline," and questioned "how it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization."
Today, a large part of what pushes millions of Americans to join the powerful gun lobby the National Rifle Association (NRA) is a "you're not-gonna-tell-me-what-to-do reaction to government," accord to Vizzard, a former agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
In addition, sheer consumerism plays its role.
"Each culture develops its interest in something, and in the United States' consumerism, guns are just a part of that."
USSC will hear about plus 100 cases of multiple deaths of people not allowed to protect themselves this week and not one peep as to the millions of lives saved.
Regardless of the USSC decision I will continue too carry and be responsible for me and mine against rabid criminal trash.
Good read KJ !
Stay safe !
Correct. He was proposing the wording for the Virginia State Constitution.
Hah! That's what you think.
I took this to the Miller court and they said my amendment protected only those books that had some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well stocked library.
Subsequent courts have ruled that only people with library cards are allowed to keep and read these library books. Which only makes sense.
"Nor is there any implication that the government is responsible for creating libraries."
My amendment only protects well stocked public libraries. It does not protect community "book clubs".
We'll soon find out when the U.S. Supreme Court decides Heller. Currently, nothing.
Congress would need to find the constitutional power to do so, they'd have to have a rational basis for the law, and they'd have to have the support of the people.
"The people" does not "include" all free citizens who are eligible to vote. "The people" ARE all free citizens who are eligible to vote. "The people" is limited to the enfranchised body politic.
It is NOT all persons. It is not even all citizens.
Strange, don't you think, that the Founding Fathers would protect the right to keep and bear arms for individual self defense and hunting and whatever, but only protect this right for a relatively small percentage of the population at the time? Why do you think they would do that? Why wouldn't they at least say, "... the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms ..."?
Tell me. Which part of your amendment protects libraries. Where does it say the government can't prohibit them?
If the right of people to keep and read library books shall not be infringed, if follows that libraries are protected. If libraries were prohibited, where would the people exercise their rights?
The amendment was written to protect libraries. If I didn't care about libraries, then I simply would have said, "The right of the people to keep and read any book they want shall not be infringed.
So why have you implied elsewhere that only militia members are protected?
So you care about libraries. That still doesn't mean that your amendment protects them. The prefatory language states that well-stocked libraries have a value, but it does not obligate the government to do ANYTHING to preserve that value that is not required by the operative clause.
Try this one; "A well-educated electorate being necessary to a secure state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed".
By your reading, this amendment would mean that the government need only supply schools and the constraints of the amendment would be satisfied. You recognize that the logical connection is being made, but then you deny that the logical connection is what motivated the writers of the amendment.
If the writers of the Second Amendment believed that prohibiting the government from infringing the right to keep and bear arms of every person capable of responsibly doing so, would contribute to a well-regulated Militia, who are you to say that they were wrong? How did you determine that widespread ownership of arms, independent of militia service, was not the intended behavior that the Founders wished to protect?
Certainly had the Founders only wished to protect Militias, they could have just said so.
Your nonsense about "people" versus "persons" doesn't hold water given the language of the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure ...". You don't claim that the protection from warrantless searches is a "collective right", do you?
Here are some more quotes that show the intent you miss:
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty's teeth." --George Washington
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson
"American have the right and advantage of being armed- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison
Because that's the logical conclusion drawn when reading the second amendment.
Again, let's look at the original meaning. We agree "the people" are the voters. In 1792, the voters were adult, white, male citizens. In 1792, the Militia consisted of adult, white, male citizens. The second amendment specifically mentions the Militia along with "the people" and their right to "keep and bear arms" (a military reference).
Put it all together and we have the right protected for individuals as part of a Militia.
If the second amendment had omitted the Militia reference, then you'd have a point. But in that case, why restrict the protection of the right to voters? Why not "all citizens" instead of "the people"? Certainly women and teens used guns for self defense and hunting. Why not protect their right also if that was the intent of the amendment?
My point is, the Founders chose the phrase "the people" for a reason. It was their intent to limit the protection of this right. I guess you think it's mere coincidence that the only ones who had their right to keep and bear arms protected were those who qualified to be in a well regulated Militia?
According to the Miller court, it protects library books. That implies a protection of libraries. Let's not get juvenile, here.
"Try this one; "A well-educated electorate being necessary to a secure state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed".
I'd rather not. It's not an accurate analogy. The second amendment does NOT read, "A well-trained populace being necessary to a secure state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
The second amendment refers to an institution, a well regulated Militia, not simply people with guns.
Because of their choice of words. They limited the protection of the right to "the people". They could very easily have written "citizens" or "individuals" or "persons". They did elsewhere in the constitution.
But let's assume you're right. Let's assume the Founders intended to protect the right to the widespread ownership of arms, independent of militia service. Then why would the Founders only protect it for such a small percentage of the population at the time (less than 20%)?
"Your nonsense about "people" versus "persons" doesn't hold water given the language of the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure ...". You don't claim that the protection from warrantless searches is a "collective right", do you?"
No. Then again, there's no prefatory clause, either.
But the fourth amendment right is protected for the same group -- "the people". You do agree with that -- that not all persons had this right protected? And still don't?
If you're going to cite quotes as your argument, then what I'd like to see is a quote from the Founders saying that the second amendment protects this individual right. That's the subject of this discussion. You're merely making an assumption that the second amendment protects this right.
“I think if a major purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect against a tyrannical government (which appears to be the case), then, logically, we should have the right to similar arms.”
Which is the “dirty little secret” of the Miller ruling in 1939 which is always ignored by the gun-grabbers. The Miller ruling said that the members of the militia (i.e., the people) were expected to show up with guns supplied by themselves, guns of the type that were in common usage by the military of the time. The actual ruling of the Miller case was that a sawed-off shotgun was not a typical military arm, and thus was not protected by the Second Amendment. It didn’t rule that the people had no individual right to keep and bear arms.
“Your individual gun rights outside of a Militia are secured by your state constitution. Two different issues.”
Do you have even the slightest idea what they meant be militia? Militia was every able-bodied man. Nowadays, it would be every able-bodied man and woman. But, the Second Amendment does not limit or restrict the right to keep and bear arms to just those persons. The Second Amendment protects the right of The People to keep and bear arms, just like all the other amendments that cite The People protect the rights of The People under those amendments.
IARPSUTT.
That is correct. But why are you even mentioning that?
The second amendment refers to a "well regulated Militia". That was NOT every able-bodied man (or woman). It was not even every citizen.
"But, the Second Amendment does not limit or restrict the right to keep and bear arms to just those persons."
It doesn't? Has the U.S. Supreme Court already ruled? Did I miss that?
"The Second Amendment protects the right of The People to keep and bear arms"
Correct. Not every person.
I agree to no such thing.
Are you claiming that the same "20%" you have identified for the Second Amendment are the only people protected by the Fourth? That a woman living in her own home alone in 1792 could suffer her home to be searched without a warrant?
I did a quick search on "Bill of Rights" and picked out the first nine names mentioned as having contributed. Seven of the nine were older than 45 years old. You are claiming that the majority of our Founders intentionally failed to protect their own individual right to keep and bear arms.
Where is your exception for General Washington when he was Commander-in-Chief of our revolutionary forces? He was certainly older than 45 at the time of some of his service.
You have no justification for suggesting that a "poorly-regulated" Militia was not also a benificiary of the Second Amendment. The term "well-regulated" does not mean government controlled. One requirement of a "well-regulated" Militia is that its members be well-armed. That goal was to be advanced by ensuring that the government could not disarm the people, regardless of their membership in a Militia.
You persist in pretending that arms such as the cannon used to rescue Boston from occupation just magically appeard from some government warehouse somewhere. In fact, these cannon were taken by force from the existing government of the time from Fort Ticonderoga by PEOPLE who were in rebellion against their own government.
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.