Replies

The Second Amendment is pretty unique in the fact that it is the only Amendment with a preamble.

Why not just simply say:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Why did the Founders decide to qualify the people's right?

In essence, Laurence Tribe bases his pro gun control argument on the meaning of that preamble, saying that the people's right to keep and bear arms exists only as those rights apply to an actual State's militia; a "well regulated" State's militia.

Tribe's argument is that the Amendment applied to the State, and that it meant that the State was able to limit possession of arms to an actual State's militia, there to protect itself against the Federal government.

That's the Amendment read from the left.

I read it from the right, and from the right it says that the people's right to protect itself against anything that would destroy our Constitutional Republican form of government, is essential to the continued survival of our Constitutional Republic, and that as such, our right as individuals to bear and keep arms must not be infringed.

So, in a nutshell, the government is not constitutionally limited from requiring citizens to register their weapons, and I'm pretty sure they can constitutionally tax them. I don't even think that the State is limited from requiring people to show some sort of proficiency as a requirement of ownership, after all, the Second Amendment mandates the State to maintain a militia, and the individual has a responsibility to be proficient in the use of his weapon, so that he may bear arms in common defense when necessary. It stops when the government begins enacting laws restricting the ability of the people in general to keep arms.

So, what's left?

Only the definition of "arms" that individuals can "keep", and how does "bear" impact the definition of "keep", as it relates to "arms"?

But that's a subject for another day...I have to get some sleep.

" Why did the Founders decide to qualify the people's right?"

First, it's the people's right. That's the same people refered to everywhere else in the Constitution and it's Bill of Rights. When the States are the subject, the word State(s) is used, as it is in the 10th Amend, or in the body of the Constitution itself. It's the people's right.

The clause preceding the directive, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", is neither a preamble, nor is it a qualification. It's a statement reflecting on and stating that the directive itself is necessary. The implied necessity is Freedom. Regulated means to make functional, effective and unencumbered. It does not mean regulated as some folks would have it. They insist it means infringed. That would contradict the main directive, which is that the people's right should not be infringed. Tribe's claim and Bork's also, amounts to the claim that the Amend. could be rewritten to read: "A well infringed militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The free State means the condition of the people, not the condition of any State. Else the directive would have been written as: the right of the States to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The founders were clear about standing armies, just as they were clear in their meaning of the second Amendment, that it was the people's unqualified right, not the States, and it was not to be infringed.

Here's the liberal version according to their claims: "A well infringed people, being necessary for the security of an almighty State, the right of the States to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Thank You.

No, I do not hold the Tribe position because Tribe is reading into the amendment his ideas of state militias.

I do, however, hold the opinion that there is no freedom without responsibility. And that it is not reasonable to expect in this day and age that when people interact with potentially dangerous objects that they have some basic level of competence.

I DO NOT support - and I don't read it that Keyes does - ANY sort of gun registration or taxation. I DO concede the reasonableness of licensing for gun ownership. Or call it "certification" if you like. NOT as government "permission" - anymore than my marriage license means I have the government's permission to marry - but as the recognition that I have the ability to responsibly exercises my rights.

This would give no ammo to the gun grabbers because the fact that I hold certification does not inform them whether I own a gun or a dozen guns...simply that I'm certified to.

I fail to see how this gives the Feds any more authority over gun ownership than it currently has. Because if one says "It gives them a list of who to look for when they take the guns" then I will submit to you that when you filled out all that paperwork, they already got your name.