Official Constitution website is VERY anti-2A!
- Thread starter Drjones
- Start date
- Status
atk wrote:
I don't think I ever used the word "benevolent," but that word does approach my view to a degree. My belief is that through the process of elections, the American people become informed enough about their elected representatives that they choose good people looking to do good things. We also have a system of checks and balances that is in place to ensure that if bad law makes it through all the hurdles, it will eventually be struck down. Either one or the other house of Congress will not acceed, the President will veto, or the courts will find it unconstitutional. This does not mean that bad law does not make it through this entire process, but in our system, there is always, always opportunity to change it. I trust in this system and I trust in the people that populate it.
We, the people, are the first line of defense. We must make sure that only reasonable people are elected to office. After that, if we trust ourselves, we can trust the system. It is not blind trust. It is tempered with healthy scepticism. As you say (and as did I), the system is made up of people. They do make mistakes, and that is what the checks and balances are there to help prevent. On the whole, our nation is blessed with Good Law. There is most certainly some Bad Law out there, that will hopefully be overturned in time, and Silly Law that could stand repeal.
That would be a fine change, and would remove my concerns about the militia and the ambiguity (invented or not) concerning a collective right. But in its unambiguous, it seems to remove all possibility for regulation of any sort. That I cannot accept. My new approach to the gun issue via amendment is two-pronged. To remove the ambiguousness caused by the militia clause and to allow for reasonable regulation. This latter part is a sticky widget, but I think my super-majority and dual-session provisions take care of the worst of my own fears about a reasonableness test.
To repeat, the url is http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html
I don't think I ever used the word "benevolent," but that word does approach my view to a degree. My belief is that through the process of elections, the American people become informed enough about their elected representatives that they choose good people looking to do good things. We also have a system of checks and balances that is in place to ensure that if bad law makes it through all the hurdles, it will eventually be struck down. Either one or the other house of Congress will not acceed, the President will veto, or the courts will find it unconstitutional. This does not mean that bad law does not make it through this entire process, but in our system, there is always, always opportunity to change it. I trust in this system and I trust in the people that populate it.
We, the people, are the first line of defense. We must make sure that only reasonable people are elected to office. After that, if we trust ourselves, we can trust the system. It is not blind trust. It is tempered with healthy scepticism. As you say (and as did I), the system is made up of people. They do make mistakes, and that is what the checks and balances are there to help prevent. On the whole, our nation is blessed with Good Law. There is most certainly some Bad Law out there, that will hopefully be overturned in time, and Silly Law that could stand repeal.
That would be a fine change, and would remove my concerns about the militia and the ambiguity (invented or not) concerning a collective right. But in its unambiguous, it seems to remove all possibility for regulation of any sort. That I cannot accept. My new approach to the gun issue via amendment is two-pronged. To remove the ambiguousness caused by the militia clause and to allow for reasonable regulation. This latter part is a sticky widget, but I think my super-majority and dual-session provisions take care of the worst of my own fears about a reasonableness test.
To repeat, the url is http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html
Since you are such a believer in checks and balances (as am I), it is difficult to understand why you are against the 2nd Amendment as protection against government tyranny. For it is the people named in the 2nd Amendment who are the final and ultimate check and balance against tyranny. As one who believes so much in our system, I would expect that you of all people, would whole-heartedly support what many consider the most important guarantee of individual freedom and civil liberty.
Last edited:
I know my answer will not satisfy neither RKCheung nor Drjones, but it is simply this: a single voter with a single vote never killed anyone. I prefer to see tyranny stopped at the ballot box than with a bullet. However, should the ballot box fail, my proposals will not have disarmed the people.
grampster
Member
Mountain,
I do understand full well your position and what you posit. However, a couple questions. Has anything that you have observed in this marvelous thread, which has been an emotional, but reasoned dialogue caused you to consider rethinking your position in the slightest?
Why?
Why not?
cordially,
grampster
I do understand full well your position and what you posit. However, a couple questions. Has anything that you have observed in this marvelous thread, which has been an emotional, but reasoned dialogue caused you to consider rethinking your position in the slightest?
Why?
Why not?
cordially,
grampster
Nor has a single fully automatic weapon legally owned by an American citizen ever killed anyone either.
Yet you want them banned. (I don't think you're up for even "reasonable restrictions" on those, are you?)
And you speak as if everyone here simply can't wait to get their sights on some politician, chuckling with glee as we mow them down.
You grossly misunderstand us.
As I've tried to explain before, to state "it can't happen here" on the topic of government tyrrany against its citizens is just wrong and shows a thoroughly complete ignorance of the history of mankind, plain and simple.
I'm not saying its GOING to happen, or that it WILL happen, just that it CAN, yes, even in America, and to deny that possibility is stupid, plain and simple.
You are trying to tell us that hot is cold, that the sky is green, that things fall upwards.
And no, your ballot measure probably won't have disarmed us completely against govt tyrrany, but it will have denied us of the weapons best suited to such a defense.
And a mere aversion to violence is not a reason to be against the ownership of certain weapons.
There isn't a person here, mountain, who WANTS another bloody revolutionary war. Most people here vote and are, in general, quite politically active. Much moreso than the average person I know at least.
We simply understand and accept fully the fact that someday we may be forced to use force, but only as a last resort, when all other non-violent means have been completely exhausted and have failed.
Anyone who fails to reserve force as a final option is just ignorant of history and even a basic understanding of the workings of human nature, period.
I still haven't seen your rationale for wishing to ban an item that has never harmed a human being.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill
1. I'm well aware of the two incidents since 1934, but I do not count those since both perpetrators were police officers, one, I believe, used his issued weapon to commit the crime. (IIRC, he shot his family and himself with his Dept-issued Mp5.)
2. I guess you are referring to the crime by the mobsters prior to 1934, but again, that doesn't really count since;
a) They would have gotten the guns anyway
b) They were criminals and probably not legal to own firearms anyway.
Realized that the point had already been made and I was going to toast my post, but since we're on the topic...
1. Pretty sure one was privately owned. Police can still count as private citizens who own MGs, if they want to go through the hassle.
2a. Yep.
2b. Pretty sure felons could own guns prior to '68. No lawbreaking there.
1. Pretty sure one was privately owned. Police can still count as private citizens who own MGs, if they want to go through the hassle.
2a. Yep.
2b. Pretty sure felons could own guns prior to '68. No lawbreaking there.
Yes. I believe one was the officer's personal, privately-owned weapon, and the other was dept. issued.
However, since most everyone, mountain included, is OK with the govt. having any gun they want, and because they hold the govt and its agents to a higher standard, it helps to drive home the point that what use a firearm is put to depends only on the character of the person using it.
Al Norris
Member
Ok now. Right off the bat, I need to say that I use Steve's site for quite a bit of research. His layout is easy to use for purposes of quotation or brief excerpts of the history of the Constitution. Steve's link are noteworthy because they do tend to lead to balancing views. I've spent a lot of time there over the years.
One of the most pleasing things I have gotten from Steve's website, was his reporting of the 2000 election. Day to day, I watched as he steadily wrote and rewrote that page. Despite all of the partisan reports we were subject to at that time by the popular media, Steve was writing an objective and non-partisan report of what was happening. Even today, in its (hopefully) final form, it reads as a chronicle out of the pages of a history book. Thank you for that effort, Steve.
As regards this whole debate, I finally have read all the posts and I come away with more questions. Not just for Steve, but for many of you here on THR. These questions are posed as statements of fact, in how the BOR is to be viewed by the Courts as well as the Congress and the Executive.
One of the things that have always bothered me about most places that purport to show the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the lack of including the Preamble to the BOR. I wonder if it is because it is rare that it is taught? That has to be part of it, because there are so many real scholars out there that are simply amazed to find out about this "little secret." I am now of the opinion that the government simply wants to ignore this. Why?
Like the Preamble to the Constitution, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is not a legally binding instrument. It is however, the reason for and the explanation of the existance of the main document itself. The Supreme Court has often used the Preamble to the Constitution in its various findings. Yet the Preamble to the BOR has never, to my knowledge, been used in any findings by any Court. One has to be just a bit curious as to why. It is only in understanding this Preamble that gives the clue.
We all know, or at least we should, that the BOR does not grant anything, let alone Rights. It does list certain Rights. These were thought to pre-exist the Constitution, and hence, the founding of our country. In looking at the history of the ratification process, we know that 5 states would not have ratified the Constitution until or unless such a Bill was added to the Constitution. The ratifying documents of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, South Carolina, and Virginia make this quite clear. Without these 5 states, there would have been no USA as we now know it. This is also the main legal arguement that the BOR cannot be ammended or stricken from the Constitution. It would invalidate that Constitution on its face.
So, what does this Preamble say?
As stated in the preamble, the only purpose for the proposed amendments was to prevent the federal government from "misconstruing or abusing its powers." To accomplish this, "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" were being proposed. The amendments, when adopted, placed additional restraints or limitations on the powers of the federal government. Thus, every clause of the Bill of Rights, without exception, is a declaratory statement and a restrictive provision.
A declaratory clause, pursuant to Blacks, is a simple statement or assertion and carries a sense of legislative intent. A restrictive clause is a statement that restricts or limits a function of the law or the government. By the wording of the Preamble itself, the Articles of the Bill of Rights are a declaration of intent and restrictions upon the actions of the Federal Government.
Because of the many cases in which the Preamble to the Constitution are used as some basis of their rulings, one can only quess at why such rulings have not used the Preamble to the Bill of Rights in a like manner, when reviewing cases that hinge on rights as enumerated within the BOR. Since so many scholars are not aware of its existence, is it not logical to assume that the judiciary is likewise uninformed?
Else one is left with the assumption of conspiracy, because no amount of "reasonable regulation" can lessen the restrictions placed upon the government by these articles when viewed through this Preamble.
Even utilizing Findlaw's comentaries you will not find the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. Yet, this preamble is listed at The National Archives. Even an extensive search of Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: 1833), will not find any reference to this preamble.
With this view in mind, the Bill of Rights, by its preamble, is separate from all other amendments. The Bill of Rights, by its Preamble, are fully incorporated into the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. The deception, if there be deception, is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the guiding presence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.
As regards this particular thread, the declaratory statement, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is permanently modified by the restrictive clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Such strict scrutiny must be applied to every right enumerated within the BOR.
One of the most pleasing things I have gotten from Steve's website, was his reporting of the 2000 election. Day to day, I watched as he steadily wrote and rewrote that page. Despite all of the partisan reports we were subject to at that time by the popular media, Steve was writing an objective and non-partisan report of what was happening. Even today, in its (hopefully) final form, it reads as a chronicle out of the pages of a history book. Thank you for that effort, Steve.
As regards this whole debate, I finally have read all the posts and I come away with more questions. Not just for Steve, but for many of you here on THR. These questions are posed as statements of fact, in how the BOR is to be viewed by the Courts as well as the Congress and the Executive.
One of the things that have always bothered me about most places that purport to show the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the lack of including the Preamble to the BOR. I wonder if it is because it is rare that it is taught? That has to be part of it, because there are so many real scholars out there that are simply amazed to find out about this "little secret." I am now of the opinion that the government simply wants to ignore this. Why?
Like the Preamble to the Constitution, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is not a legally binding instrument. It is however, the reason for and the explanation of the existance of the main document itself. The Supreme Court has often used the Preamble to the Constitution in its various findings. Yet the Preamble to the BOR has never, to my knowledge, been used in any findings by any Court. One has to be just a bit curious as to why. It is only in understanding this Preamble that gives the clue.
We all know, or at least we should, that the BOR does not grant anything, let alone Rights. It does list certain Rights. These were thought to pre-exist the Constitution, and hence, the founding of our country. In looking at the history of the ratification process, we know that 5 states would not have ratified the Constitution until or unless such a Bill was added to the Constitution. The ratifying documents of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, South Carolina, and Virginia make this quite clear. Without these 5 states, there would have been no USA as we now know it. This is also the main legal arguement that the BOR cannot be ammended or stricken from the Constitution. It would invalidate that Constitution on its face.
So, what does this Preamble say?
As stated in the preamble, the only purpose for the proposed amendments was to prevent the federal government from "misconstruing or abusing its powers." To accomplish this, "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" were being proposed. The amendments, when adopted, placed additional restraints or limitations on the powers of the federal government. Thus, every clause of the Bill of Rights, without exception, is a declaratory statement and a restrictive provision.
A declaratory clause, pursuant to Blacks, is a simple statement or assertion and carries a sense of legislative intent. A restrictive clause is a statement that restricts or limits a function of the law or the government. By the wording of the Preamble itself, the Articles of the Bill of Rights are a declaration of intent and restrictions upon the actions of the Federal Government.
Because of the many cases in which the Preamble to the Constitution are used as some basis of their rulings, one can only quess at why such rulings have not used the Preamble to the Bill of Rights in a like manner, when reviewing cases that hinge on rights as enumerated within the BOR. Since so many scholars are not aware of its existence, is it not logical to assume that the judiciary is likewise uninformed?
Else one is left with the assumption of conspiracy, because no amount of "reasonable regulation" can lessen the restrictions placed upon the government by these articles when viewed through this Preamble.
Even utilizing Findlaw's comentaries you will not find the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. Yet, this preamble is listed at The National Archives. Even an extensive search of Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: 1833), will not find any reference to this preamble.
With this view in mind, the Bill of Rights, by its preamble, is separate from all other amendments. The Bill of Rights, by its Preamble, are fully incorporated into the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. The deception, if there be deception, is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the guiding presence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.
As regards this particular thread, the declaratory statement, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is permanently modified by the restrictive clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Such strict scrutiny must be applied to every right enumerated within the BOR.
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
Well Done, Mr. Norris
To Al: Thanks for the kudos. It is feedback like that which makes maintaining my site for so long all worth it. I have not had a chance to read all of you posting, but I will when I have more time.
As for now, I want to do something I have refrained from doing thus far, and that is relying on an external source for some propping-up, some moral back-up, as it were. As I was sitting at my computer today, making a copy of a Finding Nemo CD for my wife so that she can play it for the kids, I picked up one of my books and started flipping though. I didn't pick it at random - I have used it before, because my own views closely match those of the author, and mine have subsequently been influenced by his. The author is Leonard Levy, a prolific author on constitutional topics. His book is Origins of the Bill of Rights and it contains, as one might think, a chapter on the 2nd Amendment. I will transcribe some relevent portions (any errors are mine):
Thus I bid you all a good night, and I shall return to catch up later.
As for now, I want to do something I have refrained from doing thus far, and that is relying on an external source for some propping-up, some moral back-up, as it were. As I was sitting at my computer today, making a copy of a Finding Nemo CD for my wife so that she can play it for the kids, I picked up one of my books and started flipping though. I didn't pick it at random - I have used it before, because my own views closely match those of the author, and mine have subsequently been influenced by his. The author is Leonard Levy, a prolific author on constitutional topics. His book is Origins of the Bill of Rights and it contains, as one might think, a chapter on the 2nd Amendment. I will transcribe some relevent portions (any errors are mine):
Thus I bid you all a good night, and I shall return to catch up later.
Al Norris wrote:
The entire Bill of Rights, as introduced to the states, can be found on my site: http://www.usconstitution.net/first12.html
The entire Bill of Rights, as introduced to the states, can be found on my site: http://www.usconstitution.net/first12.html
Al Norris
Member
Hmmmm, somehow in all my browsing of your site, I completely missed that page. Thanks for the heads up, Steve.
Mr. Norris:
Thank you for your wonderful post!
As to your question of why certain things like the Preamble to the BOR or the Federalist Papers are all too often ignored, well, it is a very obvious and easy answer:
Ignoring them makes it easier for certain groups and individuals to further their anti-constitutional agenda.
It's that simple.
Thank you for your wonderful post!
As to your question of why certain things like the Preamble to the BOR or the Federalist Papers are all too often ignored, well, it is a very obvious and easy answer:
Ignoring them makes it easier for certain groups and individuals to further their anti-constitutional agenda.
It's that simple.
- Status