...American Political Tradition and so far I absolutely love this class and professor. The professor is hilarious and absolutely impossible to peg as either a dem or repub.
Well today we got discussing the 2nd Amendment and I really got into a great discussion with the professor. Now mind you the professor has been teaching this course for 10 years now and he actually created the course. USF is the only FL state school with the course, obviously. He is very knowledgeable about anything concearning American political tradition and can tell you anything you want to know about the framers of the Constitution, etc.
So, he says that the 2nd amendment has two parts a dependant clause and an independant clause. Simple grammer he proclaims. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State" is the INDEPENDANT clause and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is the DEPENDANT clause. He said the pro-gun people are right for the wrong reasons and the anti-gun people are wrong for the wrong reason.
So he says that the right to bear arms applys to Militias which are state funded and run. He says that Militias have gone the wayside. I brought up Tench Coxe's "Who are the Militia?" quote. I said wasn't the original Militia the volunteer Minutemen who were mere farmers and other ordinary citizens who took up arms against the Redcoats? He said that back in those days Militias were much more formal. They had elected officers and such. They were also at the state level. For example the 69th Irish volunteer militia in New York..the "Fighting Irish." He said also in some areas Militia membership was mandatory.
He said the right guaranteed by the amendment was a state's right to keep a standing militia. His reasoning is that some Anti-Federalists argued during the Constitutional Convention that a standing Army, formed by the Constitution, was tyranny. It doesn't matter if it was full of selfless Pat Tillmans, a standing Army is tyranny. Thus, the 2nd Amendment was to assuage to Anti-Federalist's concearns of an Army.
So I asked, is that not a direct contradiction to the Declaration of Independance? The first phrase of the Declaration reads "We the People." Patrick Henry immediately dismissed the Declaration after reading those words, there was no "We the People." There were Virginians, Pennsylvanians, etc. So the Second Amendment, as worded, was intended to silence the Anti-Federalist worries about a strong central Government that bypasses State's rights by garanteeing the State's can arm themselves against the Federal Military. He agreed and told me that is exactly what it is. He said essentially the National Gaurd is the current Militia. I said but the National Gaurd was created over 100 years later in 1903 by an act of Congress. He immediately agreed.
I asked, you would agree that the other 9 amendments all pertain to the people's rights, not state's rights, yes? He agreed. So I asked, why is the 2nd different? He said the reason why is that back then nobody would have ever thought it necessary to guarantee the individual's right to private firearm ownership. If a bear was attacking your livestock you needed a gun to shoot it with. You needed a rifle to shoot deer to feed your family with, etc.
I asked, so you are saying that nobody in those days would have thought there would be a psycho democratic Senator named Feinstein 200 years later trying to take away our guns? He said that's exactly why. He said them putting a clause guaranteeing an individual's right to private firearm ownership would be like writing an amendment guaranteeing you the right to breathe air.
He also said that during the Constitutional conventions there were many amenments written about the right to bear arms. He told me of a group in PA that had an amendment formulated that listed all sorts of reason why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed but I cannot remember the name of the group to research it. I did find online from a draft of one of the PA constitutions before the ratification of the new Constitution that reads "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state."
so I did more research. On June 25, 1788, the Virginia Ratifying convention appointed a committee to draw up a bill of rights. From George Mason's original draft which is available in the Library of Congress:
"17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power. "
New York and North Carolina's ratifying conventions practically mirror Mason's writings and James Madison's final draft of te Bill of Rights is almost verbatim to Mason's.
So, yeah... I may have been wrong all these years about what the 2nd Amendment actually guarantees. However, it is important to take into consideration the original intent of the framers and they are indeed on our side.
I told him I read an article by an english professor that debunks his theory of the dependant/independant clause and I was going to do more research for next class so I could again engage in discussion. He smiled from ear to ear and told me he would love for me to do that. I have found the article of the english professor, Copperud and am fevereshly researching the topic for class on Wed. I also plan to ask him why he continually goes to hunting as a reason for private firearm ownership and not protection. I'm really excited, I've never had this much fun in a college class before and it really helps having such an awesome professor who is so conducive to learning...
Sorry this was so long but since this is the legal and political section, this is a gun board and we do debate the 2nd amendment a lot I figured it was worth typing!
Please join in the discussion but don't flame me if you disagree!
Well today we got discussing the 2nd Amendment and I really got into a great discussion with the professor. Now mind you the professor has been teaching this course for 10 years now and he actually created the course. USF is the only FL state school with the course, obviously. He is very knowledgeable about anything concearning American political tradition and can tell you anything you want to know about the framers of the Constitution, etc.
So, he says that the 2nd amendment has two parts a dependant clause and an independant clause. Simple grammer he proclaims. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State" is the INDEPENDANT clause and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is the DEPENDANT clause. He said the pro-gun people are right for the wrong reasons and the anti-gun people are wrong for the wrong reason.
So he says that the right to bear arms applys to Militias which are state funded and run. He says that Militias have gone the wayside. I brought up Tench Coxe's "Who are the Militia?" quote. I said wasn't the original Militia the volunteer Minutemen who were mere farmers and other ordinary citizens who took up arms against the Redcoats? He said that back in those days Militias were much more formal. They had elected officers and such. They were also at the state level. For example the 69th Irish volunteer militia in New York..the "Fighting Irish." He said also in some areas Militia membership was mandatory.
He said the right guaranteed by the amendment was a state's right to keep a standing militia. His reasoning is that some Anti-Federalists argued during the Constitutional Convention that a standing Army, formed by the Constitution, was tyranny. It doesn't matter if it was full of selfless Pat Tillmans, a standing Army is tyranny. Thus, the 2nd Amendment was to assuage to Anti-Federalist's concearns of an Army.
So I asked, is that not a direct contradiction to the Declaration of Independance? The first phrase of the Declaration reads "We the People." Patrick Henry immediately dismissed the Declaration after reading those words, there was no "We the People." There were Virginians, Pennsylvanians, etc. So the Second Amendment, as worded, was intended to silence the Anti-Federalist worries about a strong central Government that bypasses State's rights by garanteeing the State's can arm themselves against the Federal Military. He agreed and told me that is exactly what it is. He said essentially the National Gaurd is the current Militia. I said but the National Gaurd was created over 100 years later in 1903 by an act of Congress. He immediately agreed.
I asked, you would agree that the other 9 amendments all pertain to the people's rights, not state's rights, yes? He agreed. So I asked, why is the 2nd different? He said the reason why is that back then nobody would have ever thought it necessary to guarantee the individual's right to private firearm ownership. If a bear was attacking your livestock you needed a gun to shoot it with. You needed a rifle to shoot deer to feed your family with, etc.
I asked, so you are saying that nobody in those days would have thought there would be a psycho democratic Senator named Feinstein 200 years later trying to take away our guns? He said that's exactly why. He said them putting a clause guaranteeing an individual's right to private firearm ownership would be like writing an amendment guaranteeing you the right to breathe air.
He also said that during the Constitutional conventions there were many amenments written about the right to bear arms. He told me of a group in PA that had an amendment formulated that listed all sorts of reason why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed but I cannot remember the name of the group to research it. I did find online from a draft of one of the PA constitutions before the ratification of the new Constitution that reads "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state."
so I did more research. On June 25, 1788, the Virginia Ratifying convention appointed a committee to draw up a bill of rights. From George Mason's original draft which is available in the Library of Congress:
"17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power. "
New York and North Carolina's ratifying conventions practically mirror Mason's writings and James Madison's final draft of te Bill of Rights is almost verbatim to Mason's.
So, yeah... I may have been wrong all these years about what the 2nd Amendment actually guarantees. However, it is important to take into consideration the original intent of the framers and they are indeed on our side.
I told him I read an article by an english professor that debunks his theory of the dependant/independant clause and I was going to do more research for next class so I could again engage in discussion. He smiled from ear to ear and told me he would love for me to do that. I have found the article of the english professor, Copperud and am fevereshly researching the topic for class on Wed. I also plan to ask him why he continually goes to hunting as a reason for private firearm ownership and not protection. I'm really excited, I've never had this much fun in a college class before and it really helps having such an awesome professor who is so conducive to learning...
Sorry this was so long but since this is the legal and political section, this is a gun board and we do debate the 2nd amendment a lot I figured it was worth typing!
Please join in the discussion but don't flame me if you disagree!
