Posted on 07/07/2008 10:11:04 PM PDT by neverdem
What they had in mind was an armed society, ready to keep any attempted elected tyrant in check.
Someone refresh my memory, what was the Boston Tea Party over? something like a 3% tax on tea!
I imagine if the founders came back today, I can see them feverishly sweating in those heavy wool outfits loading their muskets and finding strong trees and good rope.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Oh my God. The framers actually wrote what they meant? And the meant what they wrote?
No wonder there are folks today that are scratching their heads. I mean, there are people that stumble over the meaning of “is” in a sentence.
And I quote: “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
There it is. The Declaration of Independence says it; and the 2nd Amendment gives us the ability to do it. It's as simple as that.
The notion that the Second Amendment grants rights to the states is so full of holes any first year law student could see through it. First, the U.S. Constitution does not give rights to the states, but only to the federal government; it speaks to the organization of the federal government only. And so there is no mistake about its intent, it goes on to provide that any power not granted to the federal government is EXPRESSLY reserved to the states. Specifically, the Bill of Rights is intended to protect INDIVIDUALS from the authority of the FEDERAL government. Period. Only in the last 60 years or so has the SCOTUS decided that those protections should extend from the Bill of Rights to protect INDIVIDUAL rights from action by the STATE governments. That part is new and strictly judge made. But nowhere, now or before, has any part of the Constitution granted rights to the states.
I have to laugh every time one of these articles talks about the “framers” of the constitution. Due to women’s lib, the term “founding fathers” was said to be demeaning to women, even though every single one of the so-called “framers” was a man. So, due to political correctness, “founding fathers” is out, “framers” is in.
I think the founding fathers did a great job with the language of the constitution. The 2nd amendment is written in plain language, as are all the amemdments. It shouldn’t really take court decisions to confirm for us what the plain language means. It is the linguistic contortionsists who stretch the constitution to mean things that were not intended.
Thank goodness. How else should one interpret a text?
Stay away from college literature classes these days. They're teaching something they call post-modernism and one of the central tenants is that "the author is dead and we cannot know his/her intent." Even if the author is still alive. Because the author who he was at the time of writing is different than the person they are today. Or some nonsense like that.
Unquestionably the reference here is to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, reproduced in BOLD below:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Note that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, or, and this is most important, to the PEOPLE. The above poster would have us understand that the states are granted near limitless power over the people within their various domains. This is a view that has some merit in that it recognizes that the federal government enjoys only the powers granted to it by the Constitution, and nowhere does the Constitution explicitly grant the federal government any power to regulate the internal conduct of the various states. The conduct of the states and the relationships of the various state governments to their citizens is set out in the various state Constitutions, which often mirror the federal Constitution, but which also vary from it in some significant ways. Nevertheless, is quite clear that rights naturally attaching to the people cannot be Constitutionally infringed upon by the aggrandizement of power at either the federal or the state levels, or the gurantees of liberty are rendered moot.
I want to amend my previous post to point out that Amendments 13, 14, and 15, at a minimum do indeed explicitly include an element of control over the internal behavior of States toward their citizens.
Not really. Rights not explicitly protected by the Constitution of the U.S. fell under the purview of states to protect or not. If a right was not adequately protected by a state, one could (1) seek to replace any officials who would abridge it, (2) seek to amend the state constitution to protect it, or (3) if all else fails, move. Giving federal judges the authority to decide what rights should be protected is far more dangerous than leaving the responsibility to the states.
A fifty caliber lead ball will help you get a bear off your cabin porch and, when combined with others, put down an insurrection (see aftermath of OJ trial), and possibly end an invasion (as long as you're not out-numbered).
By recognizing an individual's right to empower themself with a weapon, further guarantees would be un-necessary in safeguarding individual liberty's destiny.
Some feel with today's militarized police that such empowerment is no longer necessary. These mini-standing armies are no less a threat to liberty than their bigger cousins and the complacency that they generate is as dangerous as opening that cabin door and becoming a mauling victim, rape victim, murder victim, etc. by failing to accept responsibility for yourself and heeding the wisdom of the founders.
The road to Heller was paved with original intentions...
I read that passage here on Free Republic every time I pulled up the 'latest comments' page last week, the week of July 4th. With their 'Declaration of Independence', the founders announced their decision to go to war (using guns, of course) to get rid of the British government and institute a new government. With the second amendment they wanted to ensure that future generations were guaranteed the same opportunity, should the need ever arise.
I'm no Supreme Court justice but this seems very obvious to me.
Self defense, gun collecting, hunting, and target shooting have nothing to do with the second amendment.
Well done! :-)
The same exact words: (minus two comas)
'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 missing comas, when added, add just enough confusion to give license to the reader who is unhappy with the intent of the writer.
Who added these two commas?
In other words, we have a serious problem of indiscipline and violence in our cities, so the answer is to reduce the individual rights of all Americans..
When will there be any serious discussion on actually reducing the culture of crime in our inner cities without tap dancing around it? Our political leaders and the media seem to think that it's just an accident of nature that the murder rates in our major cities are so high and that reducing the rights to self-defence of all citizens will change things.
Idiocy.
The author also writes OpEd columns for the NY Times, so I thought the editorial sidebar was OK for his commentary. It doesn't mean I agree with the author. With Heller's only 5 - 4 majority, the Second Amendment still seems precarious.
Maybe only God knows.
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.