Posted on 02/19/2003 2:17:30 PM PST by Skooz
2nd Amendment "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."
Have you ever heard someone say gun control is a fine idea— except that the Second Amendment prohibits it?
It’s a popular sentiment. Fortunately, it’s not true.
The Second Amendment was never intended as a gun license for the entire American populace. As originally drafted—and as consistently interpreted by the courts for more than a century—the Amendment does not grant any blanket right to own a gun nor does it stand in the way of rational, effective gun control.
The idea of gun ownership as an American birthright is nothing more than a popular myth. Yet the controversy over gun control and the Second Amendment rages on.
As the nation’s oldest and most prominent defender of individual rights, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) holds the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights in the highest regard. To clear up many misconceptions, what follows are some basic questions and answers about the Second Amendment and gun control.
Q The Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Doesn’t it mean just that?
A There is more to the Second Amendment than just the last 14 words. Most of the debate on the Amendment has focused on its final phrase and entirely ignores the first phrase: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . ." And to dissect the Amendment is to destroy its context. While some scholars have suggested that the Amendment gives individuals the constitutional right to bear arms, still others have argued for discarding the Amendment as irrelevant and out of date. However, the vast majority of constitutional experts agree that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to apply only to members of state-run, citizen militias.
Q If it doesn’t guarantee the right to own a gun, why was the Second Amendment included in the Bill of Rights?
A When James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights in the late 1780s, people were still suspicious of any centralized federal government. Just 10 years earlier, the British army been an occupying force in Colonial America—enforcing arbitrary laws decreed from afar. After the Revolutionary War, the states insisted on the constitutional right to defend themselves in case the fledgling U.S. government became tyrannical like the British Crown. The states demanded the right to keep an armed "militia" a form of insurance.
Q What exactly is "a well regulated militia?"
A Militias in 1792 consisted of part-time citizen-soldiers organized by individual states. Its members were civilians who kept arms, ammunition and other military equipment in their houses and barns—there was no other way to muster a militia with sufficient speed. Over time, however, the state militias failed to develop as originally anticipated. States found it difficult to organize and finance their militias and, by the mid-1800s, they had effectively ceased to exist. Beginning in 1903, Congress began to pass legislation that would eventually transform state militias into what is now the National Guard. Today, the National Guard—and Army Reserve—are scarcely recognizable as descendants of militias of the 1790s. The National Guard and Reserve forces, in fact, do not permit personnel to store military weapons at home. And many of today’s weapons—tanks, armored personnel carriers, airplanes and the like—hardly lend themselves to use by individuals.
Q Does the Second Amendment in any way guarantee gun rights to individuals?
A No. The weight of historical and legal scholarship clearly shows that the Second Amendment was intended to guarantee that states could maintain armed forces to resist the federal government. Most scholars overwhelmingly concur that the Second Amendment was never intended to guarantee gun ownership rights for individual personal use. Small arms ownership was common when the Bill of Rights was adopted, with many people owning single-shot firearms for hunting in what was then an overwhelmingly rural nation.
Q Does the Second Amendment authorize Americans to possess and own any firearms they feel they may need?
A Clearly, no. The original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of states to maintain state militias. Private gun ownership that is not necessary to the maintenance of militia is not protected by the Second Amendment.
Q Does the Second Amendment allow government to limit—even prohibit—ownership of guns by individuals?
A Yes. Federal, state and local governments can all regulate guns without violating the Second Amendment. State authorities have considerable powers to regulate guns. The federal government can also regulate firearm ownership, although some scholars believe that the federal power may not be as extensive as that of an individual state. California, for example, has limited the ability of local governments to regulate firearms. While the state has kept its broad regulatory power, cities and counties can only prohibit guns from being carried in public places.
Q How have the courts—particularly the U.S. Supreme Court—interpreted the Second Amendment?
A The Supreme Court has flatly held that the individual’s right to keep and bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution." In the four cases in which the high court has addressed the issue, it has consistently held that the Second Amendment does not confer a blanket right of individual gun ownership. The most important Supreme Court Second Amendment case, U.S. v. Miller, was decided in 1939. It involved two men who illegally shipped a sawed-off shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, then claimed the Second Amendment prohibited the federal government from prosecuting them. The court emphatically disagreed, ruling that the Second Amendment had the "obvious purpose" of creating state militias, not of authorizing individual gun ownership. In two earlier rulings in 1876 and 1886, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment affected only the federal government’s power to regulate gun ownership and had no effect on state gun control powers. Those cases, Presser v. U.S. and U.S. v. Cruikshank, formed the basis for the continuing legal decisions that the Second Amendment is not an impediment to rational gun control. In another case that the Supreme Court declined to review, a federal appeals court in Illinois ruled in 1983 that the Second Amendment could not prevent a municipal government from banning handgun possession. In the case, Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, the appeals court held that contemporary handguns couldn’t be considered as weapons relevant to a collective militia.
Q The National Rifle Association (NRA) says the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms. Has the NRA got it wrong?
A Like any powerful special interest, the NRA works to secure its financial well being. It insists on a view of the Second Amendment that defies virtually all court decisions and contradicts findings of most legal scholars. In so doing, the NRA actively perpetuates a seemingly endless cycle of gun-related fatalities. The NRA intimidates politicians because it is very well financed and, like any wealthy single-issue special interest, can muster considerable pressure and scare tactics against legislators who oppose it. For decades, the NRA has effectively promulgated its message. Other voices have recently begun to be heard, however, including the public health community, civil rights and civil liberties organizations and groups committed to women’s, children’s and family rights. The NRA implies that the Bill of Rights forces us to accept unlimited gun ownership and tolerate the human tragedies that guns cause in our society. That simply isn’t true.
Q What are the Second Amendment positions of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Massachusetts?
A For decades, both the national ACLU and its Massachsetts affiliates have agreed the Second Amendment guarantees only the rights of states to maintain militias. The national ACLU has urged caution over gun control laws that, though well intended, might infringe on other civil liberties. The ACLU of Massachusetts believes effective gun control—especially of handguns and assault weapons—is essential to curbing the escalating violence in our society
I wouldn't be so sure of that. By that statement, you fall right into the trap of the commie gun-grabbers, who will argue that "you can't own nuclear weapons, so we can therefore limit what arms you can own, up to and including a total ban."
That a lie which is all a lie may be mey and fought with outright
But a lie which is part a truth is a harder matter to fight. - Alfred Tennyson
"There is no lie so bold as a truth half told" - This quote has been in my brain a long time, but I can't find a source: It could even be me.
THis piece is very good propaganda, just enough mis-represented truth to sound credible.
And to dissect the Amendment is to destroy its context...
The straight lie. They are using "disent" to mean "partially quote out of context". Diisecting would mean to examine the words in the context of the time they were written and their meaning at that time to determine the original intent
... While some scholars have suggested that the Amendment gives individuals the constitutional right to bear arms, still others have argued for discarding the Amendment as irrelevant and out of date...
Irrelevent to the previous sentence and logically flawed. "In future we should only sell Extra Crispy KFC because while some people prefer Original Recipe, others are vegetarians"
However, the vast majority of constitutional experts agree that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to apply only to members of state-run, citizen militias. and that's the National Guard so there.
However dissecting the context of the original purpose shows that the Framers of the Amendment wanted the milita to counter the evil of a Standing Army, and considered a Select Milita such as the National Guard as equally opposed to the concept of a Citizen Militia as a Standing Army.
And, that, my dear friends, is where these lying, commie-loving, gun-grabbing, slime-sucking bastards who call themselves 'defenders of liberty' are going to put their butts in the wringer. If the US SC ever has the audacity to rule that the idiots at the VPC and the rest of the lying, rat-bastard Brady Bunch, are correct in their phoney 'collective rights' BS, it will open the door to a full-scale gun confiscation drive; such a thing would necessitate the wholesale denial of not just the 2nd, but the 4th, 5th and 6th as well. The ACLU really likes the 4th; how would they square the denial of the 2nd if it entailed the denial of the 4th also? Because that is what it would take to go around and collect arms from the millions who would refuse to obey a confiscation order. These people are full of crap, and trying to bluff their way out of what could be a very nasty situation.
disent = dissect (don't know what happened there; fingers not obeying brain)
I, for one, believe that they (the ACLU and other gun-control extremists) fully understand what the Second Amendment says, precisely what it means, and exactly what writings and debates formed the basis for its wording. If these people were amateurs, there would be 20,000 less gun laws in this country.
It has been pointed out that liberals have to be either pathetically stupid, or inherently evil, to continue to push their programs which have proven to be wrong. Some of these "useful idiots" may be short a few neurons, but that simply cannot be the case for that many people.
How can this many people be this stupid, yet somehow they can coordinate their anti-American, or anti-gun protests. They're never short of lawyers, and most of their cases are judged (in their favor) and closed before the affected conservatives even hear about them. Their candidates have been voted into many more positions than could possibly have been elected by just the stupid percentage of the population. They own the schools, universities, courts, half the legislatures, some governorships, and every bureaucracy in the country.
They are not stupid, misguided, or ignorant. They know exactly what they are doing, and what they want to accomplish.
Until someone can prove to me that liberals are all (or even mostly) operating at the Forrest Gump level, or below, I will continue to believe that they know exactly what they are doing, and where it will lead.
And I will continue to believe that liberals are inherently evil.
A well educated citizenry being necessary to the liberty of a free state; the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
The poster went on to ask, "Does this mean only govt approved teachers and regulated "citizenry" may read books kept in secure higher-learning institutes?"
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater … confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment (1764).
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War (1775).
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776).
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke (1784).
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed BV the Late Convention (1787).
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense or by partial orders of towns...is a dissolution of the government." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-1788).
"Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." James Madison.
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms …To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . " Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788).
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).
"…The said Constitution be never construed …to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
"Suppose that we let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal: still it would not be going to far to say that the State governments with the people at their side would be able to repel the danger...half a million citizens with arms in their hands" --James Madison, The Federalist Papers
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-- Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania. [Note: This sentence was often quoted in the Revolutionary period. It occurs even so early as November, 1755, in an answer by the Assembly of Pennsylvania to the Governor, and forms the motto of Franklin's "Historical Review," 1759, appearing also in the body of the work.--Frothingham: Rise of the Republic of the United States, p. 413. ]
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime."--Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" -- Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."--James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789.
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Framer (1788) at p. 169
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."--Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at p. 750, August 17, 1789.
"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"--Noah Webster in "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," 1787, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at p. 56 (New York, 1888).
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." --Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist No. 29.
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." --Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" --Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." --Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975.
"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." --Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." --Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" --Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." --Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850).
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" --Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy p. 20, S. Padover ed., 1939
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. --Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318, Foley, Ed., reissued 1967.
"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." --Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894).
"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" --from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2.
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)
"[The American Colonies were] all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. [European countries should not] be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them." --George Mason, "Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company" in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970).
"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." --James Madison, Federalist No. 46.
A Militias in 1792 consisted of part-time citizen-soldiers organized by individual states.
WELL, ACCORDING TO ALEXANDER HAMILTON (you know, one of those pesky founding fathers), a "militia" is "a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out".
According to George Mason , a militia is "the whole people, except for a few public officials."
Patrick Henry said: "The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun."
Sam Adams piped in on the subject by stating: "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to ... prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
Of course, the ACLU would actually have to CARE to be accurate to read a little history to find these quotes -- an unlikely event.
I didn't know that. Useful information.
I'll only bring up a few points since so many others have done a fine job of proving the ACLU's Second Amendment stance to be farcical.
With a little searching one can soon find hundreds of pro-individual right (concerning the 2nd) thoughts of those involved with the formulation of the bill of rights. It should be noted that not one single quote has been submitted as evidence against an individual right - not one.
Further evidence against the ACLU's stance is the simple fact that the majority of states have their own version of our Second Amendment.
Now to the brunt of my post:
It's a sad thing to see a group supposedly well-versed on our laws and court decisions so ill-informed about those laws and decisions.
The 1939 SCOTUS decision of US vs Miller didn't begin to state that which the ACLU claims. In fact that decision ruled against Miller under the guise that a sawed-off shotgun did not pass Constitutional muster for a militia-type weapon. While that decision required great lengths of hypocritical thinking; it did not rule that the Second was not an individual right. The justices went to considerable trouble in discussing exactly what the militia was and is in determining their verdict. Even they could not avoid the simple fact that our long-standing law (concerning the milita and it's definition) clearly states that the milita consists of individuals not serving in the active (or non-active) military. Those individuals are defined by age (and at one time - sex). Current US code concerning the militia can be found here.
Other court cases have ruled that the National Guard is not under the control of the states; therefore it doesn't meet the requirements found in our Constitution for a militia. See Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)
Even the Supreme Court agrees on what the meaning of "the people" is (individuals). (Adamson v. California, 1947).
There were only three Second Amendment related Supreme Court cases in the 19th Century. Here is a quote from the case of Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) :
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government...the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.
Prior to the passage of the 14th Amedment, the bill of rights were considered applicable only to the federal government (even quite some time after the 14th was passed). It served as a limitation upon only the federal government. Regardless of this limitation, the Presser court wrote that the right to keep and bear arms existed for "all citizens capable of bearing arms" and the states could not infringe upon this right.
For a summary of court cases involving the Second Amenmnet, please visit Guncite.
In short the ACLU is far less than honest when it comes to the Second Amendment; a fact which makes their claims concerning other issues suspect as well.
'Zac'kly. And remember, only the well-regulated milita is allowed to be secure in their person and property.
blah, blah, BANG!
teeman8r
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.