http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second...tution#Meaning_of_.22to_keep_and_bear_arms.22
By the way, insults do not help advance the discussion.
Everyone is Going to Hate Me, but...
- Thread starter GoodKat
- Start date
- Status
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second...tution#Meaning_of_.22to_keep_and_bear_arms.22
By the way, insults do not help advance the discussion.
danez71
Member
In 1776, the Declaration of Independance included the phrase "....all men are created equal....".
That appears to be plain and clear.
However, in 1865, 90 yrs later, we adopted the 13th Admendment to abolish slavery. And the 19th Admendment in 1920, 134 yrs later, gave females the right to vote just like males.
The Constitution/BOR is considered the supreme law.
The Declaration of Independance is, well, just that.
The Constitution neither granted permission, nor denied, slavery or womens voting rights.
The first 10 Admendments BOR did neither as well.
Given that, why was the 13th and 19th Admendments needed for the perfectly clear Constitution/BOR?
That appears to be plain and clear.
However, in 1865, 90 yrs later, we adopted the 13th Admendment to abolish slavery. And the 19th Admendment in 1920, 134 yrs later, gave females the right to vote just like males.
The Constitution/BOR is considered the supreme law.
The Declaration of Independance is, well, just that.
The Constitution neither granted permission, nor denied, slavery or womens voting rights.
The first 10 Admendments BOR did neither as well.
Given that, why was the 13th and 19th Admendments needed for the perfectly clear Constitution/BOR?
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
I did not insult you, I said your posts make you look less intelligent with every one because you appear to be willing to engage in intellectual dishonesty as long as it advances your position.
Citing Wikipedia as a source just proves my point. You have been referenced several times to linguistics experts cited in Heller. You have not attempted to rebut any of their arguments because, I assume, you have not read them or they disagree with your position (they do by the way, to save you from having to read them).
Yet you quote Wiki as a definitive source. That is not someone who wants to engage in an honest debate.
Last edited:
It wasn't intended to be, and it certainly was not directed at any person or forum member.
The article is extensively cited.
danez71
Member
LOL
you do realize that your link contains this: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals......"
That's like arguing blue is blue again.
There is also a rebuttal to that. Remember, I am not arguing for a specific interpretation, I am contending that the wording is too ambiguous.
bushmaster1313
Member
Nothing would be more ambiguous than the endless debate that would come along with an amendment to the 2nd Amendment.
2nd Amendment is clear.
Keeping and Bearing Arms is a fundamental right.
Therefore any laws impacting the right must pass the same muster as laws impacting other fundamental rights.
No ambiguity unless you want there to be.
2nd Amendment is clear.
Keeping and Bearing Arms is a fundamental right.
Therefore any laws impacting the right must pass the same muster as laws impacting other fundamental rights.
No ambiguity unless you want there to be.
danez71
Member
I know.
Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 1 - The Legislature
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
It clearly says that it gives them "All legislative Powers".
Isnt that like the fox watching the hen house?
I feel like I'm in one of those old Bud commercials... "Why ask why?"
danez71
Member
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
If you are actually interested, which I personally doubt given the way this thread began, you may find all of the briefs for Heller here:
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller
It's a lot of reading. And no, I am not going to waste my time cutting and pasting pieces of it for you. The information is there if you actually care.
In many of those you will find the linguistic arguments on both sides. And, whether you like it or not, it is the interpretation of the Supreme Court that matters.
They disagree with you 100%. They find the wording neither ambiguous nor confusing in any way.
I will give you one piece, which pretty much summarizes the "bear" thing that you are hung up on with Wikipedia.
The interpretations you have referenced, showing "bear arms" to have a solely military meaning, are the exact things that the Supreme Court rejected as being just silly.
I too think the wording is ambiguous. Case law (Heller, Miller, etc) has provided some clarifications but still leaves a lot of room for different interpretations IMO.
By the way, I have been reading the opening arguments of heller, and the details of how the 2A was put together, and it is starting to look as though it may have actually meant different things to the framers themselves. Here is the progression that the amendment went through before being ratified:
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
This is the problem with textual analysis ... we read "all men are created equal" and conclude that it must be a declaration of race and gender equality ...it seems perfectly clear ... but that is not what was meant at all ... the declaration that all men are created equal is a denouncement of the divine right of Kings ... Virginians are not born with saddles while the King is born with spurs to ride us by the grace of God.
bushmaster1313
Member
Any ambiguity would be at the fringes.
Right to carry club, knife, sword, pistol, rifle or shotgun was clearly included.
Right to carry club, knife, sword, pistol, rifle or shotgun was clearly included.
Thanks for that information. Absolutely fascinating as to how the wording evolved and it really helps in understanding the intentions of the framers.
It should also be remembered that there were common law (case law) restrictions on weapons at the time of the framing, which the framers presumably accepted since they didn't try to repeal the common law. And common law thrives on ambiguity and reinterpretation.
From the:
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
REPORT
of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
Second Session
February 1982
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service." 43
In the House, this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were then trimmed in the interests of brevity. The conscientious objector clause was removed following objections by Eldridge Gerry, who complained that future Congresses might abuse the exemption for the scrupulous to excuse everyone from military service.
The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In this form it was submitted to the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "for the common defense".
The earliest American constitutional commentators concurred in giving this broad reading to the amendment. When St. George Tucker, later Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, in 1803 published an edition of Blackstone annotated to American law, he followed Blackstone's citation of the right of the subject"of having arms suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law" with a citation to the Second Amendment, "And this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government." 44William Rawle's "View of the Constitution" published in Philadelphia in 1825 noted that under the Second Amendment
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should at tempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." 45
The Jefferson papers in the Library of Congress show that both Tucker and Rawle were friends of, and corresponded with, Thomas Jefferson. This suggests that their assessment, as contemporaries of the Constitution's drafters, should be afforded special consideration.
Later commentators agreed with Tucker and Rawle. For instance, Joseph Story in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" considered the right to keep and bear arms as "the palladium of the liberties of the republic", which deterred tyranny and enabled the citizenry at large to overthrow it should it come to pass. 46
Doesn't seem the founding fathers had a lot of confusion over what it meant or why they worded it as they did. Doesn't the Supreme Court has had much difficulty with it in the Heller Decision either.
People only seem to find it confusing when it doesn't say what they want it to say.
Want to modify it, redefine it, or rewrite it - then leave the second alone and propose a new amendment to the constitution that you like. There is a process for that.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
REPORT
of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
Second Session
February 1982
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service." 43
In the House, this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were then trimmed in the interests of brevity. The conscientious objector clause was removed following objections by Eldridge Gerry, who complained that future Congresses might abuse the exemption for the scrupulous to excuse everyone from military service.
The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In this form it was submitted to the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "for the common defense".
The earliest American constitutional commentators concurred in giving this broad reading to the amendment. When St. George Tucker, later Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, in 1803 published an edition of Blackstone annotated to American law, he followed Blackstone's citation of the right of the subject"of having arms suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law" with a citation to the Second Amendment, "And this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government." 44William Rawle's "View of the Constitution" published in Philadelphia in 1825 noted that under the Second Amendment
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should at tempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." 45
The Jefferson papers in the Library of Congress show that both Tucker and Rawle were friends of, and corresponded with, Thomas Jefferson. This suggests that their assessment, as contemporaries of the Constitution's drafters, should be afforded special consideration.
Later commentators agreed with Tucker and Rawle. For instance, Joseph Story in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" considered the right to keep and bear arms as "the palladium of the liberties of the republic", which deterred tyranny and enabled the citizenry at large to overthrow it should it come to pass. 46
Doesn't seem the founding fathers had a lot of confusion over what it meant or why they worded it as they did. Doesn't the Supreme Court has had much difficulty with it in the Heller Decision either.
People only seem to find it confusing when it doesn't say what they want it to say.
Want to modify it, redefine it, or rewrite it - then leave the second alone and propose a new amendment to the constitution that you like. There is a process for that.
Mack, I admire your message apart from the sentence above. This seems awfully like saying that if anyone disagrees with you they must be wrong.
I think the confusion in the 2A arises because it seems to give an absolute right and yet it could not intend to do that since common law (case law) at the time of the framing already made the right less than absolute.
One can argue about the preamble clause and the definition of people but I think that is pretty well resolved in case law. It is this question of what restrictions are permissible (or whether restrictions are permissible) that the 2A does not address.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Before Heller there was no clear test case of a law abiding citizen citing the Second Amendment as a challenge to a virtual gun ban.
The most recent preceding case, Miller, was a bootlegger carrying a sawed-off shotgun across a state line in support of criminal enterprise. Miller as test case for 2A would be like challenging a restriction on 1A with a claimant who had falsely shouted fire in a theater and caused a panic.
Cruikshank 1875 established that the BoR kept the federal government from restricting 1A assembly, 2A RKBA, right to vote, etc, but did not apply to state governments or private citizens (the KKK) which meant states and private parties (KKK) could infringe on assemble, RKBA and voting rights, essentially gutting the 1870 Civil Rights Act and supporting Jim Crow until the Cruikshank decision was overturned by court decisions at the time of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The fact that gun control supporters cite Cruikshank to defend crap like the NY Sullivan Act and the bans in DC and Chicago is rank hypocrisy, since most claim to be "liberal" and try to paint us as "Aryan militias". Cruikshank ought to be subtitled the KKK decision.
Until "Heller" there was really no federal test case of a law abiding citizen denied RKBA challenging a federal gun ban. Remember, FDR's USAG Cummings very carefully crafted what became the 1934 National Firearms Act as a tax-and-register scheme because he (an ardent anti-gunner) admitted the federal government could not ban guns under the Second Amendment. That much was clear to Cummings in the early 1930s. The DC handgun ban, due to the District's status as a federal entity (not a state), was a federal ban, passed in part due to the obfuscation of the meaning of the Second Amendment by the gun control movement.
The challenge now is to get RKBA, like voting rights, incorporated under the 14th Amendment as protected against state and/or private infringement.
The most recent preceding case, Miller, was a bootlegger carrying a sawed-off shotgun across a state line in support of criminal enterprise. Miller as test case for 2A would be like challenging a restriction on 1A with a claimant who had falsely shouted fire in a theater and caused a panic.
Cruikshank 1875 established that the BoR kept the federal government from restricting 1A assembly, 2A RKBA, right to vote, etc, but did not apply to state governments or private citizens (the KKK) which meant states and private parties (KKK) could infringe on assemble, RKBA and voting rights, essentially gutting the 1870 Civil Rights Act and supporting Jim Crow until the Cruikshank decision was overturned by court decisions at the time of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The fact that gun control supporters cite Cruikshank to defend crap like the NY Sullivan Act and the bans in DC and Chicago is rank hypocrisy, since most claim to be "liberal" and try to paint us as "Aryan militias". Cruikshank ought to be subtitled the KKK decision.
Until "Heller" there was really no federal test case of a law abiding citizen denied RKBA challenging a federal gun ban. Remember, FDR's USAG Cummings very carefully crafted what became the 1934 National Firearms Act as a tax-and-register scheme because he (an ardent anti-gunner) admitted the federal government could not ban guns under the Second Amendment. That much was clear to Cummings in the early 1930s. The DC handgun ban, due to the District's status as a federal entity (not a state), was a federal ban, passed in part due to the obfuscation of the meaning of the Second Amendment by the gun control movement.
The challenge now is to get RKBA, like voting rights, incorporated under the 14th Amendment as protected against state and/or private infringement.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
And as the Founders started their own country they wanted to do some things differently from the common law at the time since the status quo wasn't working out very well.
But of course that gets us back to the Second being basically as wide open as the First which scares some people for whatever reason.
You will note that common law (which was British based) also had plenty of restrictions on printing presses and the media.
Would you also say that our First Amendment and the founders clearly intended to keep these things in place?
And by the way, you make the classic mistake of saying that the BoR "gives" rights. That is not correct. The BoR is intended to guarantee rights that pre-exist any government and are considered basic rights of man given to him by God. The founders intended their new country to guarantee those rights to it's citizens, not "give" those rights away. If you take the position that the BoR allows a government to "give" a right then it is easy to argue that the same government can "take" those rights away. That is simply not the case.
Last edited:
- Status
