GUNS AND THE CONSTITUTION:Telling The Right Second Amendment Story (BARF ALERT)

Findlaw.com (sic) ^ | 11/2/2001 | Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar

[Fixit]

Oops, I lost a <p> there towards the end between the last paragraph and the bio.

[FreedomIsSimple]

The Amendment speaks of a "militia"

It sure does. Too bad this brain-dead moron doesn't realize that there were three "branches" of the military in the Revolutionary era - regulars (Washington's troops), irregulars (Minutemen), and militia (every other able-bodied male).

[dasboot]

...the Constitution guarantees a limited right... Orwellian doublespeak ROTB

[alex]

"The Amendment speaks of a "militia"

And if it is about militia how come that it is a second item in something called "Bill of Rights" ?

[xm177e2]

The phrase "bear arms" in 1789 was at its core a military phrase: it referred to those who bore arms in the context of military service rather than those who carried guns merely for hunting or sport.

Back then, words meant different things than they do now. Just hand over your guns, it's what the framers would have wanted. </sarcasm>

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

PING for your input

[bruoz]

These morons also ignore the usage of "the people" in the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments. In each case it preserves or reserves the rights of individual persons.

[Demosthenes]

The Second Amendment's syntax, too, suggests that the "militia" and the "people" are, roughly speaking, synonymous; the use of "people" in the Amendment's second clause in effect refers back to the use of "militia" in its introductory clause...


Well I'll be. I think he's right, everybody, I THINK HE'S HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!

If the people and the militia are one in the same, then only the people/militia are entitled to the rights outlined in the constitution. And according to him, that typically excludes women, children, anyone unwilling to serve his or her country, etc....

[gimme1ibertee]

Jointly and separately, they have published over one hundred law review review articles and four books....And they're STILL dumbassed liberal commie ba$tards!!

[moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing]

��5{��������g to ask some real questions and I'm not looking for flames, so let's be serious here.

Why does the ammendment bring up the militia? If the framers wanted an unlimited individual right to bear arms why did they include that at all?

Should there be an unlimited right to bear arms or are some restrictions ok? And where to you draw the line?

How do you even define "arms"? Certainly, weapons exist now that the framers couldn't even imagine. Can you own a cannon.... a tank? Only handheld? How about hand-held rocket launchers, machine guns, grenade launchers?

If you believe that some reasonable regulation is ok, do you think it's a mistake for the NRA to take a Zero-regulation stance instead of working for a compromise?

Again, I'm not taking a stance here and not looking for flames; just interested in some well-thought out opinions.

[Republican Wildcat]

They don't dare consult the words of the people that actually wrote the Constitution, now do they?

[SteveH]

The Fourteenth Amendment is likewise infamous. The Reconstruction Act would not allow the Southern states that had not yet passed the Amendment back into Congress unless they passed the Amendment.

So, the Fourteenth Amendment, if it was ever passed at all, was passed under duress.

Also, "priveleges and immunities" are granted by the government and not the same as rights, which are not granted by government but possessed by citizens.

So the view of the Civil War legislators is not so much individualistic as it is paternalistic, and that is a fraud when the subject of concern is liberty.

And is "keep" a military phrase too?

The authors are guilty of the same selective vision they would project on the Fifth Circuit.

[FreedomIsSimple]

Why does the ammendment bring up the militia? If the framers wanted an unlimited individual right to bear arms why did they include that at all?

Because "militia" in the parlance of the time meant "every able-bodied male willing to fight". The word "militia" has absolutely nothing to do with the National Guard or any other organized military unit.

Should there be an unlimited right to bear arms or are some restrictions ok? And where to you draw the line?

There should be no restrictions - what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? The only acceptable "restrictions" are those against killing or robbing people with guns.

How do you even define "arms"? Certainly, weapons exist now that the framers couldn't even imagine. Can you own a cannon.... a tank? Only handheld? How about hand-held rocket launchers, machine guns, grenade launchers?

I think everything you list qualifies as "arms". Personally, I think everyone should be able to own anything they can afford to buy. It's using those arms to harm others that should be illegal.

If you believe that some reasonable regulation is ok, do you think it's a mistake for the NRA to take a Zero-regulation stance instead of working for a compromise?

The NRA is trying to prevent the gun-grabbers from taking guns slowly over time. This means they MUST take a no-retreat, no-compromise position. This is the correct stance, in fact, I believe the NRA should be working even more to repeal the ridiculous and ineffective laws on the books now.

[ruoflaw]

I agree

[Zon]

I trust myself with any type of weapon. Therefore I must acknowledge that any other person may own any type of weapon. I know that some people are not as trust worthy as myself. I'm not going to compromise my right as a trustworthy person. ... I won't have my right to own any weapon restricted so that untrustworthy people won't own them. The government must stop abusing the plentiful good apples in false hope of hindering the few bad apples.

Weapons don't kill people. A few bad apples (people) kill people.

[GOV'T MULE]

Well said.