Since the Founders didn't like standing armies, they favored a volunteer service. They favored a subservient government which, serviced the people and didn't take away rights.
Besides, it doesn't say "...the right of the militia...." to bear arms.....it says " .... the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
But worse yet, the author seems to think we should have an Amendment out there that no one understands. That we should wait for a liberal judge to "read it correctly." (ie - the way he THINKS it should have been). And while we're waiting, we better not interpret it the way it was written.
Hogwash !!!!!!!!!!!
The Founders hated government....the LAST thing they would do is grant the government this power.
The Second Amendment was written for soldiers?
The New York Times, all liberals, urban high school students, and most of the new immigrants flooding our country, all think that the american people of 1789 would not have created a new country called the United States until and unless the second amendment was included, thereby allowing only the men in our "army" the right to have a gun.
Unfortunately, the mental processes of liberals and of our new immigrants from asia and latin america is not very deep.
Just why they think only America needed a "Second Amendment" to ensure that our troops had guns is beyond me, yet that is what they believe.
It is only a matter of time before these people become the majority of our voters.
A total, out and out lie and he knows it. The Supreme Court has ruled that the "people" of the second amendment are the same "people" as the ones in first, fourth, and tenth amendments. Guess he missed that one or either he not only reads them like he wants to he also only reads the ones he wnts to.
He must think we are little children and that he's reading a fairytail to. You do not grant a state or goverment rights you grant them power. The whole sum of the Bill of RIGHTS was to make sure certain rights where retained by the PEOPLE.
PEOPLE that's you and me not, Mississppi and the United States.
This man does not write what he believes to be true, he writes what he wants others to believe is true.
The entire point of the Constitution guarantying a Republican form of government and a citizen's Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the minority from the whims of the majority.
The fact remains that when a significant portion of the American electorate favor the regulation of firearms they can only Constitutionally achieve what they favor by amending the Constitution.
Talk about twisting words!!
Molon Labe
What does THIS have to do with the price of tea in China? His statement is ludicrous simply because it doesn't address the question surrounding what the Amendment SAYS. He's trying to argue his point by arguing a different point; the two are unrelated. Whether or not there is a militia or a standing army does NOT change the wording of the Amendment, that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms may NOT be infringed!
And in the First Amendment, we read: Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So I guess that means that the "people" referred to regarding the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances must be the state legislatures.
This is absurd! What is the point of securing the state's "right" to have armed soldiers, militia or police? Such "right" existed in Soviet Union and Nazi Germany and securing it by the amendment would be COMPLETELY superfluous.
The only sense as a constitutional right this amendnment can have is that first:
people have right to own guns
second:
armed individuals have right to organise into armed grass-root militia units.
I see an analogy with the First Amendment:
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
It also contain dual aspect - freedom of speech individual and combined in a collective assembly. It means that people can speak alone and if they wish they can organise into a group. There are situations when tyranical government allows individual to beg for something by punish him if he dares to organise a group to demand something.
Same way with the Second Amendment - you can own a gun AND you can organise an armed unit (in an orderly fashion same way as a group demonstration should be orderly).
To claim that the government controlled armed units are intended in the amendment equals claiming the the First Amendment is to provide government run parades (like in a totalitarian country)
And in the First Amendment, we read: Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So I guess that means that the "people" referred to regarding the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances must be the state legislatures.
Is ignorance by omission any less ignorant; ignorance abounds.
It may be worth noting that in U. S. vs. Miller the federal trial court held that the National Firearms Act of 1934 violated the defendants’ Second Amendment rights. After Miller and Layton’s victory in the trial court, defendant Miller was murdered and defendant Layton disappeared.
Thus, when the U. S. government appealed the case to the U. S. Supreme Court, no written or oral arguments on behalf of the defendants were presented to the Supreme Court.
Gun prohibitionists often cite this case for the proposition that the court held that the Second Amendment only protected the right of the states’ National Guard to have government issued arms (i.e., the “Collective Rights” theory). This is not true, in fact, the court held that the entire populace constituted the militia, and that the Second Amendment protected the right of the individual to keep and bear militia-type arms.
The Miller court decided the following:
1) The National Firearms Act was not an unconstitutional usurpation of police power reserved to the states.
2) "In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length,' which is the subject of regulation and taxation by the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said the the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, or that the statute violates such constitutional provision."
3) "It is not within judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
4) "The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia."
Thus, the case stands for the proposition that the people, as individuals had the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms that could be appropriate for militia-type use.
The clear meaning of the Second Amendment is that in order for the state to be able to form a well-regulated militia the citizens must have the individual right to gun ownership.
Obliviously, those bent on tyranny for our nation would want to twist these words to suit their agenda. In a time when four of the nine Supreme Court Justices are willing to ignore the Constitution it is serves us well to recall the words of Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson, by no means an imprecise thinker, was well aware of this consideration. In commenting upon how the Constitution should properly be read, he said: "On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed.”
I'd suggest that is very good advice.
BTW, prior to submission to the states for ratification, Articles 3 and 4 were combined into Article 3, and Article 5 became Article 4. The states failed to ratify Articles 1 and 2, so Article 3 became the modern day "First Amendment", and Article 4 became the "Second Amendment." So, when you hear propagandists like Jane Pauley of NBC's Dateline state such nonsense as, "Our founders cherished the freedom of the press so much they placed that right in the very first amendment", you will know it is propaganda.
To view any of the first ten amendments without acknowleging they form the whole of
the 'Bill of Rights', merely shows the intent of the author.
Yet ... liberals seem to conveniently have a 'bill of rights' of this, a 'bill of rights' of that.
Like the vaunted 'Patients Bill of Rights'. Must mean something diffenrent when liberals
"give" rights than when the framers acknowledge rights of citizens.
But ... when you see what woeful state education is in, you can understand why and
how liberals can do this.
The Arab leaders must have taught the liberal wackos how to use ignorance of
the people to their advantage.
Liberals can't even get their lies straight. The NFA did NOT make machine guns illegal. In those days, the gun grabbers wouldn't dare ban any kind of gun. Instead, they used the Interstate Commerce Clause to regulate, but not ban, the weapons. They figured this loophole would allow them to place a prohibitive tax on each transfer of a machine gun, allowing them to virtually ban the guns, while claiming to merely apply "reasonable restrictions".
In those days, they knew they could not outright ban any kind of gun. The thought process of the gun grabbers has now degenerated to the point where they think the federal government is the sole source of permission as to who can own what guns. To them, the debate is already over, and it's just a matter of time until the government demands we turn in what little it permitted us to still posess.
Very selective choice of comparison there New York Times. So what does the "People" refer to in the First and Fourth and Tenth Amendments??? Does the NYT's mean to say that the individual in this country doesn't have the right to free speech, assembly, and religion??? And that the individual doesn't have the right to unwarranted search and seizure?
The only long-settled doctrine is the NYT isn't fit to be used as toilet paper.
Name: Jack N Rakove
Title: Coe Professor of History and American Studies and, By courtesy, Professor of Law
Email: rakove@stanford.edu
Organization: University
Relationship: Faculty
Position: Professor
Department: History Department
Work Phone: (650) 723-4514
Fax: (650) 725-0597
Mail Code: 2024
Address: BLDG 200 RM 117
Stanford, California, 94305-2024
The intent of the Constitution was to overcome the weakness of the Articles of Confederation while minimizing the power of a central government. It was only after the election of FDR and the infusion of socialists into his administration, starting with Eleanor, that the Federal Government grew all powerful.
The framers realized that as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated in the Declaration of Independence that “…when a long train of abuses and usurpations perusing 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 provide new Guards for their future security.” The terms “them and their” refer to the God given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that can be secured when men institute governments to do so. If the new Guards could not be accomplished through elections then the last resort would be armed removal by the citizens.
A man with a gun is a citizen, A man without a gun is a subject.
Let me ask this pressing question; if the right to bear arms were not a individual right then who are the citizens the state would call upon to form the well regulated militia necessary for the states security. Is there security in calling upon un-armed citizens to join the militia?
We can know from Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that the government had already been granted the enumerated power to operate a military.
Clause 11:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13:
To provide and maintain a Navy;
We can know from Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that the government had already been granted the enumerated power to raise a militia.
Clause 15:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
From this we can ascertain that the Second Amendment was written solely to protect the individual citizen's inherent right to defense. This becomes obvious since no one other that the individual remains to be defended as the defense of the state and the country are already covered in the Constitution.