The Wording of the 2nd Amendment...I wish it was different

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Bobson,

The Second Amendment gives us nothing. It prohibits government action infringing upon our RKBA. It doesn't limit government action, it prohibits government action infringing upon our RKBA. So placing emphasis upon the Second Amendment IS PARAMOUNT! The battle was fought and won way back when the Second Amendment was proposed and ratified so that we shouldn't have to keep on fighting this battle.

We are fighting people who have usurped power and people who support that usurpation. That usurpation is contrary to the Constitution and that second amendment to it is right there in your face.

If and when there is a move to amend the Constitution, that is the time for the antis to lay down their logic as to why the Second Amendment should be amended and our chance to quash it. If they can come up with enough votes for it to pass through Congress or get their proposal to come out of conventions in two-thirds of the several states, It'll still need to be ratified in three-fourths of the several states. That is another task for the antis to attempt and the opportunity for it to be quashed again.

Bottom line here is that the Second Amendment is the standing law in this land and no one should allow any infringements to the Second Amendment protected RKBA unless and not until the Second Amendment itself is amended. The law of the land MUST be upheld. Relying on logic and common sense to defeat these infringements is not the way to defeat them. Those infringements must be eradicated, and if necessary, eradicated with the force of law granted Congress in Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Woody

 

[Bobson]

I understand and agree with your idealistic perspective, but that's not the way this country works.

The law can change at any time, whether based on a good reason, or on the whim of a charismatic politician. All that needs to be done is to convince people that something we already have should be done away with, or something we don't have would be beneficial. If enough people buy it, it'll change.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Bobson,

I take offense at your inference that abiding the Constitution is merely an idealistic perspective. It's the law, and neither idealistic nor a perspective.

Continuing to play the game "their way" solves nothing. Capitulation is not mentioned in the Constitution anywhere, and the Constitution is not a starting line - it is a path. Once you follow it, if others need your help, they'll have to get behind you or maybe ahead of you, but if they stray off the path, do not follow them into the ditch or brambles.

I'd be very wary of those charismatic politicians, too. We do not need a batch of Hitlers in power.

As for change, there is an amendment process for that. If you are only talking about a law, if the law is constitutional, it probably is a good law. I've yet to see an unconstitutional law that ever did any good, though.

That said, you are right about a couple things that have happened at the whim of charismatic populists. The 16th, 17th, and 18th Amendments were passed. The 18th has been repealed, and a whole lot more of our troubles will be solved once the 16th and 17th Amendments are repealed.

Woody

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Even in the absence of the "well regulated militia" part, "shall not be infringed" still leaves wiggle room. Otherwise, we would not have the regulations we have now. It isn't really "infringing" to require regulations like, for example, requiring permits to carry or registration. (I am not saying these are right, just the reasoning used by the "antis.")

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Otherwise, we would not have the regulations we have now.

We have the regulations(laws) we have now not due to wiggle room but due to ignoring the Constitution and the usurpation of power.

Woody

 

[bushmaster1313]

One of my favorite parts of the Justice Sotomayor hearings came when Lindsey Grahm asked the woman if she saw any inconsistency in ruling that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect an individual right to own a gun even though it's expressly stated in the Constitution while at the same time arguing (in her opinions and in print articles) that the bill of rights has a penumbra that creates a "right to privacy" which ensures a woman's access to abortion.

She really had a "duh" look after he threw that one down.

If you were a degreed and petigreed Constitutional scholar you would understand.

 

[SouthernBoy]

Firstly, the Bill of Rights gives or assigns no rights at all. Rights do not come from government, they come from our Creator. The Bill of Rights merely recognizes this fact and then tells the government that it may not infringe in any way on these most basic and fundamental rights.

As far as the Bill of Rights being open to alteration, repeal, or anything of the sort, not according to as least two of the Founders. They believed that the Bill of Rights is cast in stone and is not subject to being amended.

Now am I so ignorant or naive to believe that there would never be any attempts to change or repeal some or all of the Bill of Rights? Not on you life and for the simple fact that I do not trust government one bit to abide by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights as they have already numerous times proved that they are perfectly willing and able to do just that... and more.

 

[Birch Knoll]

As far as the Bill of Rights being open to alteration, repeal, or anything of the sort, not according to as least two of the Founders. The Bill of Rights is cast in stone and is not subject to being amended.

Of course the Bill of Rights can be amended. They were added to the Constitution by amendment, and they can be altered or repealed in the same way.

 

[SouthernBoy]

Of course the Bill of Rights can be amended. They were added to the Constitution by amendment, and they can be altered or repealed in the same way.

Not according to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, but what did they know? What they did know was one hell of a lot and had the best teacher in the world; history. I prefer to defer to them and their peers rather than to contemporary miscreants who inhabit the halls of our legislatures, state and federal.

The reason a Bill of Rights was added to our founding documents was through the efforts of George Mason and Patrick Henry who refused to ratify the Constitution without such a document guaranteeing the Peoples' fundamental rights who remain untouched. They managed to convince Madison, who at first believed this was not necessary because the Constitution already spelled out what the federal government was allowed to do, to go along with them. These men so mistrusted the central government that they included a caveat in Virginia's ratification which stated,

WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.

Smart men... very, very smart men.

The Bill of Rights is not the same thing as the Constitution nor does it do what the Constitution does. The Constitution defines a form of government then goes about declaring what that government is allowed to do and how it is to do it. The Bill of Rights is, in effect, a warning to the federal government that certain rights belonging to the People are off limits and not up for sale, negotiation, or alteration. And they have never suffered such in the 220 years of their active existence.

The Founders knew well that without these rights held by the People and unassailable by the government, any government, freedom and liberty would be just empty words with no meaning and this country would cease to exist. I would fervently hope and pray that if any part of the Bill of Rights, and in particular the Second Amendment, were ever altered or repealed, open rebellion would exist in the nation against such despots who would consider such vile and despicable discretion against the bedrock of our liberty.

 

[Birch Knoll]

Not according to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, but what did they know?

Citation, please.

Odd that when the Bill of Rights was adopted, no provisions were adopted which would somehow exempt amendments 1-10 from any future alteration. You'd think that would be important, if it was intended that they could never be changed.

The Bill of Rights is not the same thing as the Constitution nor does it do what the Constitution does.

Of course it's not the same as the Constitution; the BOR is merely a part of the Constitution.

 

[Zoogster]

No, I think the Federal Constitution is actually written better than the state constitutions because it is and was radical at the time (drawing on some prior radical examples) in that it specifically was preserving the right to arms so the people could fight governments if necessary.



Most state constitutions protect the right for the reasons of self defense against common criminals, and/or for recreational hunting.
The Federal Constitution was going a step further, protecting the right specifically to fight government forces, both invading forces, and their own government if it became tyrannical like the founders felt their own (England) had become.



The Constitution's 2nd Amendment as a result actually protects a wider range of arms because it shows the required arms to be protected are those capable of taking on what are current government forces.
While a law stating merely for self defense from the common criminal shows that only the minimal of small arms are required to be allowed.


So the Constitution protects a broader range of arms, up to and including modern weapons capable of facing a modern military force. If the Constitution was really interpreted the way it was meant people today would have RPGs and SAMs.
While that may seem dangerous, in reality it's not that different than in their times when everyone traveled on horseback and were susceptible to immediate death from any single shot big bore long gun, the typical firearm of the day. Medical care was also limited, and this meant most people hit with a single round, especially from a rifle, musket, fowling piece/shotgun, died.
In contrast someone in a car today hit with a single shot RPG would be dead, so civilians would pose the same risk today as then, and be as capable of taking on military forces with those single shot weapons as they were back then.
The same is true for small aircraft, they would be just as vulnerable as someone on horse was back then to long gun fire, yet the population would have the capability to defend itself from military aircraft.
The only issue is commercial airlines, packing that many people in one thin skinned vulnerable frame would be (and is) stupid.
Yes widespread possession does mean there would be the occasional criminal use of RPGs, but things were dangerous back then as well, when everyone had large bore long guns and anyone shot tended to die. They would also generally be single shot weapons just like back then. It would actually put us pretty close to the situation back then.


So in reality the right under the Federal Constitution is far more reaching than all the cited state constitutions.
If it was interpreted as intended man portable RPGs and SAMs capable of allowing the population to defend against the military forces the 2nd Amendment intended would be protected militia arms, the right of all citizens.
Or a "terrible implement of the soldier... the birthright of Americans."
The civilian population would always pose a greater threat than any military force that could attack it, the intent of the founders.
Or as Tench Coxe put it:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Or Alexander Hamilton:

...if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights.

And many more..

Instead of allowing that the Supreme Court has watered it down so that it no longer allows the citizens to really have the means to fight a modern military force as was the intent, yet still allows for self defense from common criminals with limited small arms but not weapons the population would feel threatened by.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Zoogster,

The only weapons the people should feel threatened by are those in the hands of government.

Woody

 

[langenc]

Answer to the original statement--


So do a lot of the US congress , supreme court and the present Pres and VP.

 

[SouthernBoy]

deleted

 

[SouthernBoy]

Citation, please.

Odd that when the Bill of Rights was adopted, no provisions were adopted which would somehow exempt amendments 1-10 from any future alteration. You'd think that would be important, if it was intended that they could never be changed.

You have every expectation that a cite should be referenced and I spent a bit of time last evening trying to locate anything which would back up my statement that several of the Founders believed the Bill of Rights to be unamendable but unfortunately for me, I have not yet turned up anything. I did read about this some years back, however I cannot recall the where or how of it. Bad for me. In the same source, it was also mentioned that these same two men were of a mind that the Constitution was cast in stone (not their exact words I'm sure). I believe what they meant by this was the form of government which they had designed, not the fact that from time to time, corrections may be required.

So with washcloth in hand and egg on my face, you folks will either have to trust in the fact that I did see this or take a different approach of which I have no control. I do remember hearing within the past year that Washington was extremely excited about the new Constitution and its implementation, so one might imagine the excitement and anticipation of these men as they went about creating something which the world had never before seen.

I also agree with your comment about it being odd that provision was not documented as to the sanctity and solidity of the Bill of Rights when they were accepted in 1791. I can only guess that the Founders believed these most basic and fundamental rights were so essential to liberty and a free people that in their minds, there was no question as to their existence.

Initially, arguments were posed against a Bill of Rights not because they were radical, but because the Founders felt that the Constitution already chained present and future executives, congresses, and supreme courts from mischief with its enumerated powers described in Article 1, Section 8. It was hindsight that a few of the Founders had after its writing that raised questions about possible future governmental travesties and the need for a Bill of Rights as a warning to government that they may not transgress in these areas. And thank God for that.

Sorry gentlemen, I'll try more diligently in the future to cite references wherever possible to such important events.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

You can amend away the PROTECTIONS of our rights, but not those rights themselves. You can't even give them away. That's what inalienable means.

Woody

 

[Birch Knoll]

The word inalienable (or unalienable) does not appear in the Constitution, so it's non sequitur.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

This discussion has inspired me to go back and re-read Leonard Levy's article on the Bill of Rights and Don B. Kates' article on the Second Amendment in the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.

The history of the BoR is special and any attempt to repeal or rewrite one of the ten would be a political disaster.

 

[SouthernBoy]

This discussion has inspired me to go back and re-read Leonard Levy's article on the Bill of Rights and Don B. Kates' article on the Second Amendment in the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.

The history of the BoR is special and any attempt to repeal or rewrite one of the ten would be a political disaster.

While it might appear to be a political disaster, given the proper socio-political climate and/or significant national events, nothing would surprise me. Under the "right" conditions, I could very easily see serious changes or repeals of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Tenth Amendments. All it takes is for something major to take place and an executive branch willing and eager to suspend the Constitution, railroad massive changes, or declare martial law.

The problem with the Bill of Rights, in the minds of those of sinister intent, is it gets in their way to do that which they really want to see done. Remove a few of those impediments and the wolves would be at the door in no time.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

And how many folks sworn to that oath would see an executive branch willing and eager to suspend the Constitution as violating the Constitution, and following its orders as not being in accord with regulations and the UCMJ?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

You can amend away the PROTECTIONS of our rights, but not those rights themselves. You can't even give them away. That's what inalienable means.

The word inalienable (or unalienable) does not appear in the Constitution, so it's non sequitur.

Maybe so, but the pertinent part of what I wrote is relevant. You can amend away those protections but not the rights themselves.

"Unalienable" (inalienable) does appear in the Declaration of Independence, however, and the Declaration of Independence is the clarion call for the independence of the several states, formation of new governments, and the prudent union started with the Articles of Confederation and the subsequent Constitution for the United States of America. The protections of our rights in what is called the "Bill of Rights" does indeed protect those rights in an unalienable fashion and as preexisting the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. The Second Amendment is a prime example.

The word "in(un)alienable" might not appear in the Constitution, but it is without a doubt one of the basic principles surrounding our rights that the Union is founded upon.

Woody

 

[Bobson]

Bobson,

I take offense at your inference that abiding the Constitution is merely an idealistic perspective. It's the law, and neither idealistic nor a perspective.

Continuing to play the game "their way" solves nothing. Capitulation is not mentioned in the Constitution anywhere, and the Constitution is not a starting line - it is a path. Once you follow it, if others need your help, they'll have to get behind you or maybe ahead of you, but if they stray off the path, do not follow them into the ditch or brambles.

That said, you are right about a couple things that have happened at the whim of charismatic populists. The 16th, 17th, and 18th Amendments were passed. The 18th has been repealed, and a whole lot more of our troubles will be solved once the 16th and 17th Amendments are repealed.

I didn't infer that faith in the Constitution is an idealistic perspective. My point was that if one's only argument regarding why we [private citizens] should be able to own firearms is, "Because the Constitution says so," we will lose that right eventually.

Common sense, rather than the Constitution, is what's responsible for the public's belief that it's important for individual citizens to bear arms; and that belief is the only thing keeping the second amendment from being repealed.

Heck, you proved that point yourself, right here:

Bottom line here is that the Second Amendment is the standing law in this land and no one should allow any infringements to the Second Amendment protected RKBA unless and not until the Second Amendment itself is amended.

Most everyone agrees that there's no danger in losing the right to bear arms as the second amendment is currently phrased. The Supreme Court has ruled on that time and again. The danger is in the fact that the second amendment can be repealed at any time - all that needs to happen is for enough people to agree on it. That is why it's so important for pro-gun men and women to demonstrate the logical reasoning for why firearms benefit the general populace, rather than sitting back and saying, "The second amendment says so lol."

 

[Birch Knoll]

The word "in(un)alienable" might not appear in the Constitution, but it is without a doubt one of the basic principles surrounding our rights that the Union is founded upon.

Couldn't agree more. But you're talking philosophy, and I'm talking law.

Philosophically, all people have a natural right to bear arms; at least, you and I believe this. However, not everyone agrees. In many parts of the world, that natural right doesn't mean diddly, because there is no law to define and protect that right. In the US, as a matter of law, however, it's the 2nd Amendment which protects that right. If it were to be amended away, which it absolutely can be, as a matter of law, you'd have no legal right to bear arms.

Now, it's politically impossible for anyone to successfully repeal the 2nd Amendment at this point in history; the 2nd is actually enjoying a welcome comeback right now. But don't for a moment think that it could never be undone, perfectly legally. It absolutely can be, by the same amendment process with which it was created or by Constitutional Convention.

 

[Dster007]

New Hampshire law

I heard about a new law that may be past in New Hampshire that would basically give new Hampshire permit less Cary. I believe it is House Bill 536...
Quote
"The committee stripped much of the more extreme language from the bill as it was originally filed by Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Dunbarton. His version ended the ban on guns in courtrooms, and called for the arrest of police chiefs who denied permits to someone unless they were a convicted felon. It would also have made it a crime for police to stop someone carrying without a permit, and would have made it legal to carry a blackjack, brass knuckles and slingshots." follow this link http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111021/NEWS07/710219987

That's the law we need here in CA! LOL
In my humble opinion bill 536 is the intent of 2A. Yes I too have often pondered the "What if"? in regards to it being worded differently. As a matter of fact its my understanding that some of the original States recommended more strongly worded 2A amendments with an emphasis on the individual but they where rejected by James Madison and or Congress, unfortunately. But I'm not an expert.

 

[SouthernBoy]

Posted by Carl N. Brown:

And how many folks sworn to that oath would see an executive branch willing and eager to suspend the Constitution as violating the Constitution, and following its orders as not being in accord with regulations and the UCMJ?

"If an order was issued by the president to begin the process of confiscating private arms, do you believe the military would carry out this order?"

I have posed this question to a number of military personnel, officers mainly, and to a man they have echoed that such an order would not carry the weight of law and would in fact, be an illegal order based upon their oath of enlistment as well as the oath taken by the president. A few did say that they felt some in the military would be willing to carry out the order, younger enlisted types, but most of the officer core they felt would not. Let's all hope they're right.