05 Jul 10
"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."
I see where there have been different versions isued due to captilaization and punctuation. This is the one I read the most. Does it matter that Militia, State or Arms is capitalized?
05 Jul 10
Originally posted by badmoonwhy would it matter?
"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."
I see where there have been different versions isued due to captilaization and punctuation. This is the one I read the most. Does it matter that Militia, State or Arms is capitalized?
05 Jul 10
Originally posted by badmoonNot really. None of the three words should be capitalized.
"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."
I see where there have been different versions isued due to captilaization and punctuation. This is the one I read the most. Does it matter that Militia, State or Arms is capitalized?
If you mean that the drafters might have meant that the right to keep and bear arms is restricted to members of a militia, that is not the case. But, even if it were, that doesn't matter. The plain meaning of the sentence does not restrict the right so and to interpret it that was simply doesn't work.
06 Jul 10
Originally posted by badmoonThis is done in most of the writing from this period. It was generally accepted grammar to capitalize ANY noun. This rule followed the same logic that we use for proper nouns today except that it applied to nouns (and in some cases adjectives
"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."
I see where there have been different versions isued due to captilaization and punctuation. This is the one I read the most. Does it matter that Militia, State or Arms is capitalized?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071216143256AAftq5h
06 Jul 10
Originally posted by sh76This is what makes this amendment so annoyingly difficult.
Not really. None of the three words should be capitalized.
If you mean that the drafters might have meant that the right to keep and bear arms is restricted to members of a militia, that is not the case. But, even if it were, that doesn't matter. The plain meaning of the sentence does not restrict the right so and to interpret it that was simply doesn't work.
If the founders had wanted to declare a general "right to bear arms" - wouldn't it have been much easier for them to have done so? Why add all this extra mumbo jumbo about well-regulated militias?
As such, it seems to make sense to read the amendment as stating that "as long as the protection of the state requires us to have these militias, we can't restrict people from bearing arms -- BUT if in the future, new arrangements allow the state to be protected WITHOUT having to use these militias, then this amendment becomes obsolete as well".
At the end of the day, the wording of the 2nd Amendment is hopelessly murky. So ultimately, it comes down to how the Supreme Court today wishes to interpret the words of this amendment. Which is actually pretty much the way it is for the Constitution in general. The Constitution says whatever a majority of SCOTUS says that it says. If you don't like it, who you gonna sue?
06 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesMurky though it is, there's no basis in the text for such a condition. Even if that was the reason for the Amendment, it implies no condition.
This is what makes this amendment so annoyingly difficult.
If the founders had wanted to declare a general "right to bear arms" - wouldn't it have been much easier for them to have done so? Why add all this extra mumbo jumbo about well-regulated militias?
As such, it seems to make sense to read the amendment as stating that "as long as the protectio whatever a majority of SCOTUS says that it says. If you don't like it, who you gonna sue?
Rather, it makes sense to simply respect the right, but subject it to a reasonable balancing test against the interest of society in keeping safe from dangerous weapons.
That's what the SCOTUS has done, and that's what makes sense.
06 Jul 10
Originally posted by sh76One argument would be to assert that one of the "natural rights" is that people have a right to take reasonable action to defend themselves against threats to their life, liberty, and property.
Murky though it is, there's no basis in the text for such a condition. Even if that was the reason for the Amendment, it implies no condition.
Rather, it makes sense to simply respect the right, but subject it to a reasonable balancing test against the interest of society in keeping safe from dangerous weapons.
That's what the SCOTUS has done, and that's what makes sense.
One could then assert, regardless of the 2nd Amendment's wording, that the bearing of arms is clearly an essential part of this right to self-defense.
In your view, would this be a valid line of reasoning for a Supreme Court judge?
06 Jul 10
Originally posted by badmoonNo one much cares about the Constitution these days with Reconciliation bypassing the Constitutional process of passing a law and Congress enabling the EPA to inact cap and trade and the states ganing up on Arizona which is a direct violation of the Constitution etc. After all, its a "living breathing" document so we will tell you what it really means or should mean.
"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."
I see where there have been different versions isued due to captilaization and punctuation. This is the one I read the most. Does it matter that Militia, State or Arms is capitalized?
06 Jul 10
Originally posted by whodeyas I said before:
No one much cares about the Constitution these days with Reconciliation bypassing the Constitutional process of passing a law and Congress enabling the EPA to inact cap and trade and the states ganing up on Arizona which is a direct violation of the Constitution etc. After all, its a "living breathing" document so we will tell you what it really means or should mean.
the Constitution says what the SCOTUS says that it says - who you gonna sue?
06 Jul 10
Originally posted by Melanerpes😀
One argument would be to assert that one of the "natural rights" is that people have a right to take reasonable action to defend themselves against threats to their life, liberty, and property.
One could then assert, regardless of the 2nd Amendment's wording, that the bearing of arms is clearly an essential part of this right to self-defense.
In your view, would this be a valid line of reasoning for a Supreme Court judge?
I think you know the answer to that question.
06 Jul 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesThat's easy, I'll just sue the federal government. It's not like Big Brother has become so massive that we are mere ants in its path. Surely they will listen to Whodey. 😵
as I said before:
the Constitution says what the SCOTUS says that it says - who you gonna sue?
06 Jul 10
Originally posted by sh76I'm still trying to figure out what the 9th Amendment precisely means.
😀
I think you know the answer to that question.
Do you believe that a judge could use this Amendment to declare that there is a "natural right" to "self-defense" that exists even if the Framers didn't specifically enumerate it?