The Second Amendment, as defined in "The Citizen's Almanac"..

Status
Not open for further replies.
She does, I.O. Her English is, and has been for some time, quite fluent.

Although she has no "passion" for firearms, she has an ever-deepening appreciation for the right to possess, for all lawful purposes as currently exist. She has a "good for him/her!" response when she hears of a citizen using a firearm in lawful defense.

Until recently, she had no firearms experience herself, other than a few wax bullets fired from an AK-47 during a Soviet-era survival class in high school.

That changed in January of this year. See this thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=739450
 
JRH6856 said:
Obviously. But it doesn't say that, anymore than the 2A says the right is only for the militia. When reading written English, punctuation and grammar matter and have an impact on comprehension.

It says the right is protected by the Constitution. It does not say the privilege is protected by the Constitution.

The first sentence says "The Constitution protects the rights of citizens to have firearms for personal defense." So the being armed is recognized as a right, and it is described as a protected right. The second sentence says "This privilege is subject to reasonable restrictions…" To what does it refer when it says privilege? Having arms has already been described as a right, so what is being described as a privilege? What has not been described? The protection of the right by the Constitution. Any other reading is contradictory in that it results in the second sentence contradicting the first by using two terms with different meanings to describe the same thing—that thing being "hav[ing] firearms for personal defense".

You can't read the Constitution in a vacuum. During the ratification process, the founders wrote extensively regarding the intent of nearly every word, comma and period. To understand this to the fullest, one need only read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.

One needs also read and understand the SCOTUS decisions interpreting the Constitution, because those decisions bring further clarity and meaning to the words. The Declaration of the Independence and Article 1 Section 10 and the first 8 Amendments of the Constitution speak of the rights of the people. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers make abundantly clear that these riths are natural rights held by all men. In 1954 in the Dred Scott case, SCOTUS ruled that the Constitutional protection of these rights was a privilege afforded only to US Citizens. Hence, the rights are naturally held by all but Constitutional protection of those rights was privilege of citizenship. But the rights were only protected against the federal government.

In 1868, the 14th Amendment prohibited the states from abridging the privileges of a US citizen. What privileges do US citizens have? Look to Drad Scott: the privileges of the protections of the US Constitution.

This has thus been a long understood principal: all persons have natural rights, but the protection of those rights is a privilege of citizenship. Why a privilege of citizenship? Because the US Constitution only has authority over the federal and state governments of the United States. It has no authority over the governments of other countries and doesn't protect the rights of their citizens. Except when those persons are within the jurisdiction of the US.

I'm not trying to give away anyone's rights. But we can only keep them from being taken if we clearly understand what they are, and how they are protected. It makes it a lot clearer when and where those protections are violated or ignored—and when they are not.
Click to expand...

It would appear that you are not semi-literate. So you are either a pot-stirring contrarian on whom any effort at correction is wasted , or simply wrong headed. There is no way one can arrive at the idea that the framers of this text were suggesting that privilege refers to the Constitutional protection rather than the right protected other than with the dramatic and mental contortions you outline above. The document was likely drafted by a bunch of texting generation twenty-somethings and reviewed and approved by Justice Department lawyers, the former of which have no idea (nor do they care) and the latter of which most assuredly view the right of the people to keep and bear arms a privilege.

A natural right is one that exists outside the context of government. It is not granted by government and cannot be taken away by government. Indeed the Second Amendment simply forbids Congress from acting to restrict the natural right. Thus, citizenship has nothing to do with it. You may care to note in evidence of this fact that legal aliens in the United States have a natural right to keep and bear arms and that the RIGHT to do so is guaranteed against infringement by the second amendment. The privilege term is simply an example of government failing, as it always does, to recognise that it serves rather than rules the People.
 
There is no way one can arrive at the idea that the framers of this text were suggesting that privilege refers to the Constitutional protection rather than the right protected other than with the dramatic and mental contortions you outline above.
Click to expand...

Now who is being a wrong-headed contrarian? ;)
 
But it is almost exactly what the Supreme Court says that the Second Amendment says. And the Court's opinion is binding.
Click to expand...

I don't care what the USSC says. I know they are supposed to be the supreme law of the land but here is my problem. They are not elected but appointed and as such I have no idea how they can speak for the people. They certainly don't speak for me because I didn't elect them. They were appointed and therefore there is no way to say that they aren't biased to represent whoever appointed them vs. representing the people of the country. I need to read up on how they ever got to this point because it seems to me that the whole way our gov works fails right here because these people are not elected.

What's the point of having elected officials if the ones with all of the power are not elected but appointed. Do you see what I am getting at here? One could argue that since certain positions are elected that whoever is appointed to the USSC by those elected should theoretically represent the people but I don't see it that way at all. I also don't like how they can just arbitrarily add more if they want to. It's also easy to ponder that if someone wanted they could keep appointing new justices until they get the number of them they needed to make a decision in their favor! I don't consider that a good model. I realize that nothing I do is likely to change it but I fail to see how people think this is a good process because once its corrupted its all screwed.

Anyways as to the original post, I see this reasonable word thrown about a lot these days and to me this is simply a tool used to brainwash the public until they slowly erode the rights away to where nobody is the wiser. If these people aren't elected then why do they get to decide what is reasonable for the people?
 
I see what you're getting at but I'm not sure where you are coming from. I don't know where to start so I'll just jump into the middle.

The Supreme Court is not elected because it is not supposed to represent anybody. It is a court, and a court is supposed to be objective and unbiased. Supposed to be, but we all know, and the founders knew that no one can be unbiased. That is why there are 9 justices appointed for life. Because they are appointed for life, they are not appointed by any one President. The current 9 Justices were appointed by 5 different Presidents, from Reagan to Obama. They are not beholden to anyone. Each one has an opinion of the law, formed by his or her education and experience trying cases in lower courts. They each look at the cases brought to the court and express their opinion. They circulate these opinions and the one that is most convincing to the majority is how the court rules.

The Supreme Court can't make law, and the they can't go get cases to decide. They have to wait until a case is appealed to them They get around 10,000 appeals a year and accept only 70-80 for review because that is all they have time for. Because they do take the time to try and reach a correct decision.

Justices are appointed by the President but the appointment must be approved by the Senate. Congress (both houses) sets the size of the Court so, no, a President can't just keep appointing Justices until he gets the majority he wants. Franklin D. Roosevelt tried that and failed because Congress would not increase the size of the court.

If you want to know more, Wikipedia has a good article on the Court and how it works.
 
That entire passage is crap. First of all, the intent of the 2nd amendment wasn't "personal defense", nor hunting or target shooting. It was to provide a means to resist a tyrannical government, period. "Privilege" s something you need permission to do or be granted. How many times have you seen the phrase, "driving is a privilege", which requires permission and a license? "Reasonable restrictions" is at odds with the concept of "shall not be infringed".

<deleted>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hexhead writes:

..the intent of the 2nd amendment wasn't "personal defense", nor hunting or target shooting. It was to provide a means to resist a tyrannical government, period.
Click to expand...

Some would agree that protection from tyranny by a single individual could be construed as one of a myriad of aspects of "personal protection."

<deleted>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My congratulations to your wife on this happy event. My foreign born wife became a citizen several years ago, I still remember the joy and pride she felt and the look on her face as she raised her hand and swore that oath and became a United States citizen.

It's a moment we both have cherished ever since. :)
 
I'll add my congratulations and just this further comment on the SCOTUS.

The so-called interpretive power SCOTUS enjoys WRT the Constitution was granted to SCOTUS by...SCOTUS!

That tells you all you need to know about who really runs thing in the United States.
 
beatledog7 said:
I'll add my congratulations and just this further comment on the SCOTUS.

The so-called interpretive power SCOTUS enjoys WRT the Constitution was granted to SCOTUS by...SCOTUS!

That tells you all you need to know about who really runs thing in the United States.
Click to expand...
Uh, not exactly. When the law is written in general terms, Courts must interpret the written law in order to apply it to the facts in any specific case. The Constitution is law and ais very generally written.

The authority to interpret the Constitution is delegated by the Constitution: to the Court in Article III, Section 2, when deciding matters of law and equity arising under the Constitution, and to the President by Article 1 Section 2, in the veto power. But until the Court first exersised its authority in Marbury vs Madison, it had only been exercised by the President.

Fast forward to today and be very thankful SCOTUS established its authority.
 
Article III, Section 2 grants "judicial power," (note the delibrate absence of any form of the word interpret), for deciding matters of law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, ... [the rest is about treaties, which are clearly international matters) under their authority.

To be "under their authority," the matter in question must be a matter of the Constitution itself, of other federal law, or of certain matters between states. SCOTUS has no power over the states as states, only on matters involving more than one state in a specific set of circumstances. SCOTUS, though, tends to rule on matters that are none of the above, matters such as abortion, health care, the environment, marriage, gay rights, and yes, RKBA, a right which no entity is allowed (see Amendment Two) to infringe, not even SCOTUS. But we have let them get away with it.

A judge is not an interpreter of law. Judges and juries decide not what laws mean but whether they have been broken. Imagine standing in traffic court asking the judge to opine regarding what STOP actually means. The judge knows you're there not to find out what STOP means, but to get a ruling on whether you failed to STOP and whether your circumstances mitigate whatever penalty you should get for violating the clear wording of that sign. That's not interpretation--that's application.

How about another analogy, and since it's March, one from basketball. An NCAA referee has no power to decide what traveling means. He takes a test of sorts to prove he knows what it means, then the league gives him a whistle. That whistle empowers him only to decide whether a player traveled, not to decide what traveling is (common practice often to the contrary).

SCOTUS has the same power to apply, and not one shred more. If we grant the Justices the authority you propose they have more powers, then they can easily rule that your child must attend a certain college rather than the one you would select, that your state must allow same-sex marriage even though your state voted not to, or that you must enter into a contract with a health care insurer. But wait, he got that last one already.

And if you grant them the power rule on RKBA in any way, you have thereby granted them the power to just plain take way your firearms.
 
“[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental....

[A]ccordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the Judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former....

[T]he courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments.”
— Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers #79
 
But you presume Mr. Hamilton to be correct across the board, a presumption to which I will not bow. His premise is that courts by their very nature must interpret, a supposition to which I do not subscribe.

He does at least get the part right about courts being bound by the limits of their authority. SCOTUS acts as if it has none. Who is then to stand against judicial encroachments?
 
beatledog7 said:
But you presume Mr. Hamilton to be correct across the board, a presumption to which I will not bow. His premise is that courts by their very nature must interpret, a supposition to which I do not subscribe.

He does at least get the part right about courts being bound by the limits of their authority. SCOTUS acts as if it has none. Who is then to stand against judicial encroachments?
Click to expand...
Hamilton wrote on one side of the issue, others did have different opinions. Some felt Congress should police itself in making laws. Some thought judges should advise Congress during the process, Some thought the President as Chief Magistrate, should determine constitutionality. Still others thought the question should be left to state legislatures.

Madison held out for the President as Chief Magistrate view, but lost that in Marbury vs Madison. John C. Calhoun held for the state legislatures but lost that fight in the Nullification Crisis. In the end, we are left with an amalgam of all views.

Congress should try to pass laws that are Constitutional, the President should veto any that are not. The Supreme Court, as must all courts, must interpret the law and the Constitution in order to apply it. Courts have the power of judicial review and can rule a low unconstitutional, but the Constitution is always constitutional. Still, they have to determine its meaning and intent. That requires interpretation. Their decisions may be appealed to a higher court for review. SCOTUS is the highest court. From there, the appeal is to the people or the states to amend the Constitution to make their will clear if it wasn't before. An example is the 14th Amendment to correct the Court's decision in Dred Scott.

If the courts should not interpret the law (and the Constitution is law) who should?
 
The concept of laws needing interpretation at all is errant.

I invite you back to the simple analogy I made above, the STOP sign. It's direction is law and is elegantly simple, intentionally so, that we may all know what it means. No interpretation is required or desired.

Yet, many bills are written and passed into law by lawyers (we elect too many of them to legislatures and into executive office) in such a way that we simple citizens will always need lawyers to represent our position WRT those laws and judges to "interpret" those laws. This is one way in which lawyers protect their future revenue streams. Allowing that to happen is folly; laws should be simple, like the STOP sign.

2A is simple: "...shall not be infringed" is as straightforward as it gets. But look at all the ways judges have allowed RKBA to be infringed.

The Constitution is not general in nature, and treating it as such is not the legitimate function of lawyers and judges. Its provisions are very specific and are meant to be applied exactly as written. That is why the Constitution has within it the process for change. If we really find something in the document to be in need of "interpretation," what we ought to do is amend it, adding language that makes clear the troubling passage. Similarly, if we want the federal government to do something that is not within its Constitutionally limited powers--very specific and not general powers--we must amend the document to define and grant that specific power.

If a federal power has to be interpreted into being, that's because it isn't there.
 
To 450 Dakota and JRH-
You guys need to think hard about that which could go wrong during a mandatory "psycological profile". That is the kind of arbitrary thing that could screw any person wanting to own a gun. "Why do you wish to have a gun? Is somebody going to get you? Are you paranoid? What reason do you have?" I am sure that antis would love to make that a part of buying a gun. Our system is not perfect. I don't know how to keep crazy people from getting guns, but I do know how to stop them when they are shooting at me.
 
I invite you back to the simple analogy I made above, the STOP sign. It's direction is law and is elegantly simple, intentionally so, that we may all know what it means. No interpretation is required or desired.
Click to expand...

And if the STOP directive were followed literally with no interpretation or explanation, no one would ever get anywhere. They would all be stopped at the sign. The interpretation of the STOP sign is that it is not a directive but an acronym for Stop 'Till Others Pass. But that is written nowhere on the sign. And without that interpretation, the STOP sign is a no go.

No law can be written such that its proper application is clear in in every situation. That is one reason why we have courts, judges and juries.
 
An education doesn't make you smart, or right, it simply means you spent time in school. ( I won't go into lengthy detail on this subject here)

Language changes over time and the driving source for that is lawyers who are always busy trying to make the truth into something different than what was said.
That's why we get to hear phrases like : "it depends on what you mean by is ".

JRH6856 , I have no personal bone to pick with you so I will try to just put this as simple as I can. You, and those that think like you, are in my opinion a big part of the problem when it comes to the bastardization of our constitution. Your more proud of your ability to argue than you would be by getting at the truth.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Sandman said:
To 450 Dakota and JRH-
You guys need to think hard about that which could go wrong during a mandatory "psycological profile". That is the kind of arbitrary thing that could screw any person wanting to own a gun. "Why do you wish to have a gun? Is somebody going to get you? Are you paranoid? What reason do you have?" I am sure that antis would love to make that a part of buying a gun. Our system is not perfect. I don't know how to keep crazy people from getting guns, but I do know how to stop them when they are shooting at me.
Click to expand...
Point taken.

We all too often forget that just because we think a procedure would be acceptable, it doesn't mean we will actually have any input in determining what the procedure will be or how it will be used.

The Law of Unintended Consequences has a wicked bite.
 
mnrivrat said:
JRH6856 , I have no personal bone to pick with you so I will try to just put this as simple as I can. You, and those that think like you, are in my opinion a big part of the problem when it comes to the bastardization of our constitution. Your more proud of your ability to argue than you would be by getting at the truth.
Click to expand...

If you have no bone to pick with me, then perhaps you shouldn't tossed in the bone.

If I am proud of anything, it is that I know I'm not always right and address that by continually trying to learn. I would rather try to understand why your ideas differ from mine that dismiss yours out of hand because they are different. I have tried to explain why I believe what I do. Don't just tell me I am wrong, show me where and why I'm wrong. Don't just tell me you are right, show me why I should adopt your position. That way maybe we can both get at the truth.
 
The concept of laws needing interpretation at all is errant.

I invite you back to the simple analogy I made above, the STOP sign. It's direction is law and is elegantly simple, intentionally so, that we may all know what it means. No interpretation is required or desired.

Yet, many bills are written and passed into law by lawyers (we elect too many of them to legislatures and into executive office) in such a way that we simple citizens will always need lawyers to represent our position WRT those laws and judges to "interpret" those laws. This is one way in which lawyers protect their future revenue streams. Allowing that to happen is folly; laws should be simple, like the STOP sign.

2A is simple: "...shall not be infringed" is as straightforward as it gets. But look at all the ways judges have allowed RKBA to be infringed.

The Constitution is not general in nature, and treating it as such is not the legitimate function of lawyers and judges. Its provisions are very specific and are meant to be applied exactly as written. That is why the Constitution has within it the process for change. If we really find something in the document to be in need of "interpretation," what we ought to do is amend it, adding language that makes clear the troubling passage. Similarly, if we want the federal government to do something that is not within its Constitutionally limited powers--very specific and not general powers--we must amend the document to define and grant that specific power.

If a federal power has to be interpreted into being, that's because it isn't there.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you just said. I wonder how come nobody in law has challenged it? The Constitution seems pretty straightforward to me. Once we started straying away from it is when we started to have issues. Again, I wonder why someone has not challenged their power? Seems to me like all it would take is a group of states to challenge a ruling.
 
While this is not legally binding it is purposely misleading and wrong. Years ago the 2nd amendment was left out of my son's school book for crying out loud. It's all part of the plan folks.
 
Once we started straying away from it is when we started to have issues.
Click to expand...
Would that be 1791? Or 1807 with Marbury v. Madison? Or 1868 when the Constitution was interpreted (correction, amended) to apply against the states instead of only against the Federal government? Or at any of a thousand other moments when the Constitution was interpreted and practically applied?

Not a single person who's been alive in the last 200 years ever lived under the strict wording of the US Constitution. We have no possible way of even visualizing what our country would be today if we did.

To reiterate...would you want to live under the Constitution, knowing that it, including the 2nd Amendment, was NOT incorporated against your state?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LiveLife
  • Locked
Second Amendment Explained
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
MRH
M
S
  • Locked
Putting the Second Amendment Second
Replies
4
Views
557
myrockfight
M
I
  • Locked
The Purpose of the Second Amendment
Replies
11
Views
475
figment
F
W
  • Locked
GOA: Press Release: Iraqi Constitution Needs a Second Amendment
Replies
3
Views
471
mons meg
M
W
  • Locked
Wise High School Student Defends the Second Amendment
Replies
10
Views
1K
Wes Janson
W
Back
Top