Right to bear arms clearly delineated, law professor says

Blade ^ | February 14, 2003 | BLADE STAFF WRITER

[ZULU]

The meaning of the Second Amendment is crystal clear, said Nelson Lund, a law professor at George Mason University school of law in Fairfax, Va.

"In fact, for over a hundred years after the amendment was adopted, there was no controversy about its meaning," Mr. Lund said yesterday during a taping of The Editors television program. "Everyone who wrote seriously about it agreed that it protected an individual right to keep and bear arms, just like the individual rights in the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment."

[Joe Brower]

[aeronca]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" - is an explanation, he said, of why an individual’s right was being protected in what follows, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

SHALL NOT be infringed

[17th Miss Regt]

Never forget the racist roots of gun control laws - to keep firearms out of the hands of freed slaves. Don't forget that the Dems were the ones enacting these laws!

[uncbob]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" - is an explanation, he said, of why an individual’s right was being protected in what follows, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yes and though some wish it was not written that way I have come to the belief that makes sense if only it would be used more

Because it clearly shows that the framers FEARED THE OVERBEARANCE of a national government and that the 2nd amendment was a bulwark against it
NECESSARY TO A FREE STATE
Free from WHOM ?
Not foreign powers because it didn't say a FREE NATION or FREE REPUBLIC

They were talking about FREE STATES
Clearly they were worried about the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT taking away the STATES POWERS AND RIGHTS

I think the defenders of the 2nd Amendment should emphasis this in their arguments

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

"In fact, for over a hundred years after the amendment was adopted, there was no controversy about its meaning"

. . . a period of time which included the unpleasantness of the 1860s, in which many Americans were killed by arm "kept and borne" by other Americans. Nevertheless, I am not aware of any post-war movement to repeal the Second Amendment, even as they were framing and ratifying the 13th and 14th Amendments. Any attempt to do so would have been a political disaster; the Union government was already vulnerable to criticism on its respect for the Bill of Rights. Attempting to repeal one of its articles could have vindicated Southerners' arguments among Northerners (and besides, there weren't any women voters and no "soccer moms").

To the contrary, the response of union soldiers was to form the National Rifle Association to promote gun ownership to safeguard citizens' rights.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The amendment would mean the same thing even if the preface were deleted, he said.

And if indeed the preface is considered to be wrong, and the whole amendment thus a mistake, the Constitution provides a single remedy--a new amendment would be required. That's what we would do if everyone woke up next Tuesday suddenly convinced that the Senate was getting unwieldly and needed to be reduced to ONE senator per state . . .

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

STATEMENT: "Right to bear arms clearly delineated, law professor says"

RESPONSE: In the world of truths he is absolutely right. Now in the world of fact our guns will eventually be taken. Too much at stake to allow 'truths' to intervene.

[Boonie Rat]

"Now, given the change in technology, the chance that even if we all had our Second Amendment rights to keep arms that we could actually resist the 101st Airborne has become much more problematic,"

WRONG.

The "standing army", meaning ALL of the military, would have NO chance against an armed, hostile, determined citizenry. With all of the present military technology available to it the military would fall like a rock.

"WHAT GOOD CAN A HANDGUN DO AGAINST AN ARMY.....?"

Boonie Rat

MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66

[KC_for_Freedom]

Now in the world of fact our guns will eventually be taken

They certainly were able to take our cigarettes, put seat belts in cars and require their use. I guess if enough people show up at hospitals with gunshot wounds they would make the case that not taking the guns will create a crisis in the health insurance industry.

Oh wait, there already is a crisis in the health insurance industry, and street gangs are already showing up at hospitals with gunshot wounds from unregistered guns and no health insurance. Is this part of a plot?

[CapandBall]

bang

[Shooter 2.5]

That's what I would like to believe. However, I don't think it would go so smoothly.

I would guess half the NRA members might defend the constitution in this way and all of the JPFO and SAF members would. The rest of the gunowners in this country couldn't pry themselves from the TV.

The real issue is if the volunteers in the services would attack civilians. I think it would happen only if they were fired upon and then they would do everything in their power to eliminate the threat.

The only thing that would save the country is if the gunowners would understand the real enemy isn't the military or the police. It's the people who sent them.

Thank God we're still in the Ballot Box and Soap Box stage. I still have hopes we can confirm more conservative judges on the Supreme Court and get a ruling after that.

[Just mythoughts]

Agreed. I would suggest that while there is still a ballot box, liberals must have VOTE FRAUD.


I have no doubt that "IF" only legal votes were counted in 2000 election President Bush would have won the popular vote. Stopping VOTE FRAUD would take it to the liberals like nothing else would at this time.

[Shooter 2.5]

Vote fraud and the media.

Remember when Dan Quayle misspelled a word and when Gore went to visit Montecello and didn't recognize the Founding Fathers? That was a big difference in news coverage.

Someone told me that Chicago's Mayoral election is next Tuesday. I guess the newspapers have buried the Repubican's name on the back pages somewhere.

[Just mythoughts]

Exactly, since we can't count on the media for honest coverage, leaves to the rest of legal voters to demand that VOTE FRAUD be stopped.

[Flint]

I am of the opinion that the word, "state" as in "free state", meant a condtion, not a government body.

By that I mean that the intention was the same as saying "In order to maintain a free condtion.", the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.

[FairWitness]

I am of the opinion that the word, "state" as in "free state", meant a condtion, not a government body.

By that I mean that the intention was the same as saying "In order to maintain a free condtion.", the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.

I like your interpretation (though I doubt if a court would interpret it that way). I like to turn it around and think of it this way: The true guarantor of our freedom and liberty is our own conviction that we are, and by right are meant to be, free. Freedom is an attitude more than it is words on a piece of paper. The second amendment reminds us that we have the God given right to self defense of our lives and freedoms and we should reject any politician or party that does not respect and defend that right.

[Destructor]

In order for the enemies of America to be triumphant they must first succeed in striking down the Second Amendment.

[ZULU]

I agree witht you.

Despite all the modern technology available, short of a nuclear bomb, the ultimate weapon is still the grunt on the ground with a rifle, and, as demonstrated in Viet Nam, with the Russians in Afghanistan, and in other places, a determined militia, armed with hand weapons, can make conquest extremely difficult if not impossible.

One of our best allies in the coming Iraqi conflict will be the unwillingness of the mass of Iraqi soldiery to sacrifice their lives for a mad dictator. Give them a cause to fight for and the weapons to use, and they could proove themselves as dangerous a foe as any soldier that ever lived.

No people are cowards (except possibly the French). But any people needs a good, just cause to fight for, and the weapons to do it with, and they will be unconquerable.

[ZULU]

"Now in the world of fact our guns will eventually be taken. Too much at stake to allow 'truths' to intervene."

Only if we let them. Sometimes the good guys DO win.