Posted on 03/19/2008 12:15:12 AM PDT by BellStar
If that was what those who passed it truly meant, then why didn't they write it that way?
It seems odd that they would choose to say something they didn't mean, if they didn't mean that The People have the right to keep and bear arms. If they meant that "members of the militia have the right to keep and bear arms" or "The People have the right to keep and bear militia arms" or whatever, then I think they could have written that.
Oh, they meant that. Allow me the liberty to rephrase it as to the way I interpret it:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms as part of a Militia shall not be infringed by the federal government.
I guess they didn't write it that way because they thought it would be redundant.
Of course, I can ask you the same question. If the second amendment protected an individual right, why didn't it simply read, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"
Or, even better, "The right of all citizens to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
First of all, that does not communicate all that the passed version does. While it still protects the individuals' rights to keep and bear arms, it doesn't stress something that was very important--the importance of the militia.
And specifically, it's there because of the history of how the amendment came to be passed. The wording comes over nearly verbatim (in James Madison's original proposal for the amendment) from George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights, though with additional clauses dropped. With the additional clauses dropped, the form is more awkward, but it's obvious that the dependent clause remains as it was a very important point--and one of the key points from the original--that the militia is the best defense of the people against a standing army or the government.
In fact, earlier versions explicitly stated what George Mason himself had said--that the militia was the whole body of the people--but the wording was streamlined and the extraneous definition of militia was dropped.
Similarly, the Senate felt so strongly about the need to emphasize the importance of the militia as a check, it changed "the best security of a free state" to "NECESSARY for a free state." On the other hand, that same day, a proposal to add "for the common defence" after "bear arms" was shot down.
But really...most of all, I think...the opening clause of the Second Amendment is necessary because it is dealing with a topic that is mentioned in Article I, Section 8, and without clarification, someone could try to claim that militia equipment would be exempt from the Second Amendment. The opening clause makes it quite clear that although the Congress is given the power to play with the militia, the Second Amendment prevents it from defanging the militia by removing arms from the people or making the militia a tool of Congress to the detriment of the body of the people.
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution; June 16, 1788
Then 7mmMag@LeftCoast quoted Jefferson: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is,..."
To point out the contradiction in your post, I need only ask, "What is the second strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms?" Jefferson is in no way supporting your statement that self-defense in the wilderness is not a reason to safeguard the right.
I was clearly stating the reason for the 2nd amendment is to safeguard against tyranny, backed by Jefferson's statment, not to protect bubba from enraged geese.
Jefferson is in no way supporting your statement that self-defense in the wilderness is not a reason to safeguard the right.
That statement makes no sense whatsoever and has absolutely nothing to do with my point.
Jefferson spoke about "the strongest reason". What would he have said is the second strongest reason?
How the heck would I know, the man is dead. Far be it for me to second guess him. Maybe for protection from rabid rabbits? No wait that is what Jimmah Carter said canoe paddles were for.
” This is a wake up call for all those out there who do not think McCain is conservative enough for your vote. Imagine what a Clinton or Obama appointee would be like.”
McCain has added his name to an amicus brief with 55 other Senators and VP Dick Cheney urging the Supreme Court to uphold a lower court ruling overturning the ban.
Then stop quoting him telling us about "the strongest reason" as support for your statement that there is only one reason.
When a person tells you what he thinks is the strongest reason, it in no way indicates that there is only one reason. You have no justification from Jefferson for your statement that "the right to bear arms has NOTHING to do with the wilderness or wild animals."
Nothing Jefferson has said suggests that self-defense is not included in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
Apparently you do not fully appreciate the reason for or the reasoning of the Founding Fathers in the writing of the Second Amendment or you are just f’ing with me. But at least you are on the side that supports the Right to keep and bear arms and that will just have to be good enough for now.
Besides protecting yourself from tyranny IS self defense.
55 Senators? This means there are democrates supporting overturning the ban. I did not think that there were any pro 2nd Amendment Democrats left after John Stennis died.
I wonder what their ulteriuor motive is?
Thanks, I've never come across your hypothesis concerning the role of militias but I am only an amateur (very)scholar when it comes to the constitution and more specifically the 2nd amendment.
If what you say is correct about militias, then the general populace would be dependent upon their respective state governments to “do the right thing” and call out their respective state militias to take action against the U.S. military. In my opinion, it is very improbable that would ever happen as there is a very strong relationship between the NG units and the US military. So, it seems to me that responsibility for taking action would still fall upon individual citizens banding together.
Btw, what does RKBA stand for? Just curious.
Or to surpress local insurrections. Or to repel invasions. This select group had the training and discipline to do this effectively.
"In my opinion, it is very improbable that would ever happen as there is a very strong relationship between the NG units and the US military"
Today? Sure.
But back when the second amendment was written, we had no standing army or "National Guard". The Founders were afraid of federal standing armies, and believed a state Militia was the better way.
"Btw, what does RKBA stand for?"
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
I believe that definition applies to the entire amendment.
"George Mason himself had said--that the militia was the whole body of the people"
As you correctly quoted at the end of your post, George Mason said that the militia is "the whole people". "The whole people" was another way of saying "the people".
If self defense was part of the second amendment right, the why wasn't the right protected for women and children? Foreign visitors? The Indians?
It was protected for women and children. Once again you are trying to claim that the incapacity of infants is relevant to the scope of protection to be afforded a fundamental right. You really need to expound some more on how the fact that babies cannot speak impacts freedom of speech for the people. You could also expound on how freedom of assembly is impacted by the fact that newborns cannot walk.
Similar issues apply to women, because at the time the Constitution was written, women were considerd incapable of exercising their inalienable rights. It was expected that their rights would be protected by others.
The Indians had opportunities to adopt our practices and become signatories to the Constitution. They were cultural incapable of doing so. Your argument that, because some people were considered incapable of exercising their inalienable rights, has relevance to which people are considered capable of exercising their rights today, is a fallacy which reveals your desire to arbitrarily control others.
You have yet to describe a situation where the home of a woman living alone was subject to warrantless search.
Very telling, no? Some people's idea of the Militia is that it is a state function. Look how well the state functioned during Katrina. The local police were vacationing in another state or looting the stores while the National Guard was busy disarming the people in their own homes who weren't looting anything.
Evidently the National Guard was enforcing the principle that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be fully infringed during and after hurricanes". They didn't even bother to keep records so that people could recover their personal property.
"Your continued insistence upon 'government controls' of these rights is the VERY reason we have them, to prevent maggots like yourself from taking them from us."
"You are a disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, inarticulate, liberty-sucking, trollish ignoramus. Your belief that guns are bad is an in-bred, Socialist-Leftist-Nazi concept and you'd do well to change in your attitude or go elsewhere to peddle your mealy mouthed crap."
Right on. You spoke exactly what I have been thinking for a long time with regard to all his ludicrous postings. Could not have said it any better and it is sad that it even has to be articulated and time wasted refuting the nonsense. But, thank God the SCOTUS has made it clear in their remarks that the preamble to the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. It has nothing to do with a militia, what so ever, other than allowing a free people to take their arms and prevent a tyrant from abusing the constitution by force of arms if and when necessary. Some people just don't get that. Some people rely so much on government that they can't bring themselves to believe that governments can do evil and turn on their own people and free men at arms is the only true protection and grantee of freedom.
Which contradicts your claim made earlier:
So they settled on a select group of "well regulated" Militia -- trained, disciplined, organized, armed and accoutered, with officers appointed by each state. It was this "well regulated Militia" that was necessary to the security of a free state, not an armed populace.As was pointed out by Justice Scalia, when the Scottish Highlanders were barred from "keeping" and "bearing" of arms (Proscription Act), it wasn't just for when they were out in militia drills.
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.