the pistolero
Member
Yawn. Same bushwa, different day from Pravda-on-Hudson.
NYT: No Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms
- Thread starter MormonWarrior
- Start date
- Status
[QUOTEthis does a great job of dissecting the 2nd and putting in proper historical context.
http://www.virginiainstitute.org/pub...r_on_const.php
[/QUOTE]
Interestuing article. Note two things:
The fundamental issue with much of the RKBA argument is that people claim that the first dozen mean aboslutely nothing - the 2nd means
If thats' what the writers meant, why didn't they say that - instead of what they did say? It's not as though they were incapable of simple speech. Given the wording of the 1st Amendment:
They could have said
Why didn't they?
We resolutley waggle our fingers at the antis' saying they ignore the last 14 words. Our proof of their calumny - we ignore the first 13!
I am not satisfied with either reading.
My suspicion is that there was a political compromise between the two meanings. I suspect that there were some anti-Federalists who wanted a clause that protected the militia from interference of the Federal government - they were very concerned about the impact of a Federal standing army. They wanted to ensure that the Federal governemnt could not disarm the state militias. I suspect that there was another group that did want an individual right to keep and bear arms. It seems likely that neither view had the votes to prevail on their own. So a compromise was struck - the first 13 words would be added to satisfy the anti-Federalists. They would read the 2nd as a protection for the state militias, and the RKBA faction would read the 2nd as a protection for individuals.
I will note that this theory is a historical hypothsis - it is somewhere on my list of tasks to attempt to verify/refute this hypothesis (but it hasn't made i to the top yet - this having to earn a living thing gets the way
). The advantage of this understanding - if correct - is that is explains the wacky grammar, and encompasses all of the 2nd Amendment. The disadvantage - if it be one - is that it suggests that the debate we are having has deep roots in the 18th century.
As a more detailed hypothesis, I would conjecture that the southerners wanted to ensure that the Federal government would not dis-arm the state militias who would be responsible for fighting any slavery rebellion, while (some of) the notherners saw it as an individual right.
That fits my model of the American Revolution - a strange amalgam of a drunk mob in Boston who were opposed to all tyranny and an oligarchy of slaveholders in Virginia who wanted to guarantee their right to tyrannize slaves! Add in a lot of Quakers, and you get us. It must not be forgotten that at the time of the Revolution, there were as many Quakers as there were Baptists in the colonies. In those days, the Quakers would have been nearly absolute pacifists.
Mike
http://www.virginiainstitute.org/pub...r_on_const.php
[/QUOTE]
Interestuing article. Note two things:
- Lund separates the amendment into a prefatory clause and an operative clause, then notes that no other Amendment has a prefatory clause.
- Lund's prooftext for his understanding of what "the people" meant in the 18th century is the Seventeenth Amendment. For bonus points, when was the Seventeenth Amendment written and ratified? Just give me a century. Hint: the answer is not 18th or even 19th.
The fundamental issue with much of the RKBA argument is that people claim that the first dozen mean aboslutely nothing - the 2nd means
If thats' what the writers meant, why didn't they say that - instead of what they did say? It's not as though they were incapable of simple speech. Given the wording of the 1st Amendment:
They could have said
Why didn't they?
We resolutley waggle our fingers at the antis' saying they ignore the last 14 words. Our proof of their calumny - we ignore the first 13!
I am not satisfied with either reading.
My suspicion is that there was a political compromise between the two meanings. I suspect that there were some anti-Federalists who wanted a clause that protected the militia from interference of the Federal government - they were very concerned about the impact of a Federal standing army. They wanted to ensure that the Federal governemnt could not disarm the state militias. I suspect that there was another group that did want an individual right to keep and bear arms. It seems likely that neither view had the votes to prevail on their own. So a compromise was struck - the first 13 words would be added to satisfy the anti-Federalists. They would read the 2nd as a protection for the state militias, and the RKBA faction would read the 2nd as a protection for individuals.
I will note that this theory is a historical hypothsis - it is somewhere on my list of tasks to attempt to verify/refute this hypothesis (but it hasn't made i to the top yet - this having to earn a living thing gets the way
). The advantage of this understanding - if correct - is that is explains the wacky grammar, and encompasses all of the 2nd Amendment. The disadvantage - if it be one - is that it suggests that the debate we are having has deep roots in the 18th century.As a more detailed hypothesis, I would conjecture that the southerners wanted to ensure that the Federal government would not dis-arm the state militias who would be responsible for fighting any slavery rebellion, while (some of) the notherners saw it as an individual right.
That fits my model of the American Revolution - a strange amalgam of a drunk mob in Boston who were opposed to all tyranny and an oligarchy of slaveholders in Virginia who wanted to guarantee their right to tyrannize slaves! Add in a lot of Quakers, and you get us. It must not be forgotten that at the time of the Revolution, there were as many Quakers as there were Baptists in the colonies. In those days, the Quakers would have been nearly absolute pacifists.
Mike
eric.cartman
Member
Guys and Girls! Stop this madness!
We will NEVER win the argument with the antis. They will never admit it. We will never hear them say "wow, you really presented the point well. you're right. 2nd A. is an individual right". I've been around antis long enough to know that.
What they truly need, is to NEED a gun one of those days and then not have it. I'm afraid only cold brutal reality will convert one anti at a time.
Arguing founders intents in the historical context makes no difference. Remember the antis are progressively enlightened. They know better then the founders.
Now, fence sitters are a different story altogether
We will NEVER win the argument with the antis. They will never admit it. We will never hear them say "wow, you really presented the point well. you're right. 2nd A. is an individual right". I've been around antis long enough to know that.
What they truly need, is to NEED a gun one of those days and then not have it. I'm afraid only cold brutal reality will convert one anti at a time.
Arguing founders intents in the historical context makes no difference. Remember the antis are progressively enlightened. They know better then the founders.
Now, fence sitters are a different story altogether
romma
Member
Unfortunetly, everytime that happens, they just pass or attempt to pass more anti-legislation.
Well, there are supporters and defenders of the Constitution and there are enemies of the Constitution, foreign and domestic.
They are out there and won't go away without persuasion.
Pesky oaths. . .eventually guys like me will have to make serious decisions. I pray that Justices Roberts, Thomas and Scalia will prevail and permit me to live a simple life.
They are out there and won't go away without persuasion.
Pesky oaths. . .eventually guys like me will have to make serious decisions. I pray that Justices Roberts, Thomas and Scalia will prevail and permit me to live a simple life.
But here is where your argument breaks down. If "the people" as read in the 2nd is a collective right, ONLY to be exercised by the State or Federal government, then so must the collective right of "the people" in the 1st. Doesn't make any sense that the 1st is protecting the government's right to freely assemble or engage in free speech, so why would it make sense in the second. And you can't very well have an assembly unless every INDIVIDUAL in the assembly has the right to be there. A group is made up of only individuals. Are you saying that I cannot protest in front of the White House unless I have a group because my right to assemble applies only collectively, and not individually? Seems silly, but that is your argument on the 2nd. You seem to be saying that unless you are part of a state sponsored group of individuals all exercising the same right, then no one can exercise the right. Those kind of mental gymnastics are just what frustrate so many of us about liberals.
Cosmoline
Member
No, "the people" in the 4th has always been considered a reference to an individual right. One of the most important rights, in fact. Though it's been battered lately. The phrase "the persons" and "person seized" is used in connection with "things" and is a reference to the fact that the amendment protects both the physical person (the body) and goods. You won't find "person" in other amendments becuase they're not dealing with the government restraining the physical body of a person. This use of the term "persons" survives now only in a legal context. Discovery rules, for example, which give you the right to inspect "the person" of a party.
Certainly a person can assemble by himself. If I organize a protest and no one shows up, are you telling me it would not be a violation of my first amendment rights to carry on my protest by myself simply because one person can't be an assembly? What if I want to give a speech at the capital and no one comes to listen? Can the government censor me then, just because no one was there to listen? I can only exercise my rights if I have a buddy?
Sage of Seattle
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 773
Only a group can petition the government for a redress of grievances?
I am a little perplexed by the grammar here. If you show up and speak and no on listens, I don't know that the right of a assembly is involved. Are you saying that it is?
The right of assembly appears to me to be a inherently a collective right.
Mike
RPCVYemen-
Surely, there were compromises, etc. in the Constitution.
However, one does have to look at the historical context, as well.
The Brits had disarmed the Scots, prior to the American Revolution, for example. That is what the new Americans wanted to guard against.
The way I look at the 2nd Amendment in modern English is this:
"We acknowledge that an armed militia, ready for action and disciplined enough to be effective, is necessary to keep a country free of oppressors, foreign and domestic, criminal and political. Therefore, the right of individuals to keep arms and to carry arms shall not be violated."
I base this meaning on a couple of things, in addition to the historical context.
"People" has a certain meaning in the Constitution, and it never means State or Federal Government in any way whatsoever. It means "individuals living in America."
"Militia" has a certain meaning at the time, as well. It means "all able-bodied adult males" who were expected to help out their communities in times of trouble, including criminal activity, riots, fires, etc.
So, the "collective right" types do have something right: the right to keep and bear arms does bring with it the responsibility to do so not just in self-defense, but also in defense of our neighbors. What it doesn't require is enlistment in the National Guard as we know it.
Surely, there were compromises, etc. in the Constitution.
However, one does have to look at the historical context, as well.
The Brits had disarmed the Scots, prior to the American Revolution, for example. That is what the new Americans wanted to guard against.
The way I look at the 2nd Amendment in modern English is this:
"We acknowledge that an armed militia, ready for action and disciplined enough to be effective, is necessary to keep a country free of oppressors, foreign and domestic, criminal and political. Therefore, the right of individuals to keep arms and to carry arms shall not be violated."
I base this meaning on a couple of things, in addition to the historical context.
"People" has a certain meaning in the Constitution, and it never means State or Federal Government in any way whatsoever. It means "individuals living in America."
"Militia" has a certain meaning at the time, as well. It means "all able-bodied adult males" who were expected to help out their communities in times of trouble, including criminal activity, riots, fires, etc.
So, the "collective right" types do have something right: the right to keep and bear arms does bring with it the responsibility to do so not just in self-defense, but also in defense of our neighbors. What it doesn't require is enlistment in the National Guard as we know it.
BobbyQuickdraw
Member
"Caesar, being in command of the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence”
They're missing the point in both of their examples, from Caesar to The Second Amendment.
In Caesar, his lack of fear is directly attributable to Caesar because he (Caesar) controls everything. Therefore he neither fear a Civil War (Caesar will crush it) or violence (Caesar's laws are so harsh). All he need fear is Caesar, as Caesar controls the earth.
In the 2A, because of the militia being necessary to the state (the militia must exist) we, the people must own guns. Because the militia and the state must exist, and we must only fear them.
Even read as one sentence, the meaning is the same:
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.
It's not how the sentence is constructed, but what it says. It says that there will always be a militia, always be a state, always be something that can go wrong. Because of that, we must all have access to our guns to prevent the wrongs from destroying us.
They're missing the point in both of their examples, from Caesar to The Second Amendment.
In Caesar, his lack of fear is directly attributable to Caesar because he (Caesar) controls everything. Therefore he neither fear a Civil War (Caesar will crush it) or violence (Caesar's laws are so harsh). All he need fear is Caesar, as Caesar controls the earth.
In the 2A, because of the militia being necessary to the state (the militia must exist) we, the people must own guns. Because the militia and the state must exist, and we must only fear them.
Even read as one sentence, the meaning is the same:
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.
It's not how the sentence is constructed, but what it says. It says that there will always be a militia, always be a state, always be something that can go wrong. Because of that, we must all have access to our guns to prevent the wrongs from destroying us.
I think that even under English law individuals could always petition the government for a redress of grievances - the Quakers did this constantly. However, pubic assembles - such as Quaker meetings - could be and and were banned.
It looks to me like the 1st asserted the right to form assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Mike
BobbyQuickdraw
Member
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
The 2A should be even more clearly seen as a natural right. The 1A just says Congress shall make no laws about religion.
The 2A says the right shall not be infringed.
You could dance around the 1A a dozen aways as long as it is not Congress specifically passing the law. And one would argue that States could then pass laws against religion.
With the 2A it is cut and dry. No one can mess with the right to bear arms because that right shall not be infringed. Not by Congress, not by anyone.
The 2A should be even more clearly seen as a natural right. The 1A just says Congress shall make no laws about religion.
The 2A says the right shall not be infringed.
You could dance around the 1A a dozen aways as long as it is not Congress specifically passing the law. And one would argue that States could then pass laws against religion.
With the 2A it is cut and dry. No one can mess with the right to bear arms because that right shall not be infringed. Not by Congress, not by anyone.
Carl N. Brown
Member
New York Times tells its readers one thing.
USA Today readers tell the newspaper this:
USA Today readers tell the newspaper this:
macadore
Member
ArmedBear and BobbyQuickdraw have it right. The revolution was fought by Minutemen and other citizen soldier types. They maintained their own firearms and used them to defend, or oppose, the state when necessary. Therefore, the right of the people who make up the militia (i.e., all of us) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The first battle of the American Revolution happened because the British were coming to confiscate firearms, gunpowder, and shot from the Minutemen. The Minutemen attacked the British rather than let that happen. The meaning of the Second Amendment was unambiguous at the time of its writing. It is still unambiguous to those who do not practice newspeak.
MachIVshooter
Member
One thing is for sure; If it is somehow determined a collective right, there are going to be a whole bunch of militia's popping up everywhere.
For our legal experts, would 2 people make collective apply?
For our legal experts, would 2 people make collective apply?
I have a feeling you are being intentionally obtuse, so I don't think it is worth carrying on. My point is that if individuals can exercise their first amendment rights as individuals even though it says "the people" in the first, then certainly "the people" in the second would mean the same thing. If you wish to be hard headed, that is your right.
I doubt it. If it is decided to be a collective right, I suspect the state Natonal Guards will be the "well regulated militia". I know the black helicopter folks will whine on about the federalization of the National Guard meaning it's not the militia, but I don't see the SCOTUS buying that line of argument.
BTW, I do expect SCOTUS to decide that the right is an individual right - I think that's a better reading. But I think anyone who thinks that's the only reasonable reading has been drinking the NRA Kool Aid.
I don't have any more tolerance for intellectual sloth in people I agree with than in those I disagree with.My prediction is that SCOTUS to rule that it's an individual right, and that no subsequent court will want to touch it for the next 50-60 years. I don't know how that will shake out in terms of policy - clearly exclusionary policy like DC's will be out. But I think SCOTUS will tolerate some level of licensing. I already live in a pretty gun-friendly state (NC), so I don't know how much change we'll see. I am betting that it won't make much difference in shall issue states.
I guess we'll know in 6 months or so.
I am done here.
Mike
mike101
Member
"Far be it for them to go to the actual writings of the framers to see what their views on the subject were."
There are all kinds of great quotes from the founders right here on THR. Just do a search. I've used them on the Brady Bunch many times.
Funny, how the antis consider "the people" to mean individuals for every other amendment, but claim it's used collectively in 2A. BS.
What they fail to realize is this. When the Constitution was written, the right of the people to keep and bear arms already existed. It was a well establihsed fact of life, and our right as British subjects.
2A merely guarantees that this previously existing right will not be infringed upon. The "militia" is cited as the reason for providing the guarantee, not as the reason for the existance of the right itself.
There are all kinds of great quotes from the founders right here on THR. Just do a search. I've used them on the Brady Bunch many times.
Funny, how the antis consider "the people" to mean individuals for every other amendment, but claim it's used collectively in 2A. BS.
What they fail to realize is this. When the Constitution was written, the right of the people to keep and bear arms already existed. It was a well establihsed fact of life, and our right as British subjects.
2A merely guarantees that this previously existing right will not be infringed upon. The "militia" is cited as the reason for providing the guarantee, not as the reason for the existance of the right itself.
Roswell 1847
member
If "people" was meant in the Collective sense it would be Capitalized.
Small "p" means people as we ordinarily use the term, as an indefinite number of individuals.
If Capitalized as in "People's Republic of China" then "People" would mean a homogenous mass, the Marxist influence on the NYT is becoming more obvious.
A Homogenous Mass in Colonial and early US days would have been expressed as "the Citizenry".
PS
The Right of assembly:
Individuals assemble to form a group or Assembly, the right of the individuals to assembly is the right of assembly.
Theres really no other way of interpreting it.
Otherwise it would be worded as the right for assemblies to exist, or some such.
People are Individual Human Beings, Beings have rights. Assemblies are constructs, constructs don't have rights, they exist because the individual, or an indefinite number of individuals, has/have the right to create them.
Roswell 1847
member
Note that the Small "p" "people" are the ones who petition for redress, not an assembly which is just a legal enity , individuals must sign a petition rather than some rubber stamp with the title of an assembly.
Militia and State are Capitalized because they are specific legal and political enities.
An assembly might be capitalized or not because the term is generic.
In an official document indentifying a specific assembly the word in its title would be capitalized if the word assembly were even included, which it might not be.
- Status