1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungParsing the words of the language of the Bill of Rights is usually a waste of time. Essentially the Bill of Rights was a "throw in" to appease some opponents of the Constitution that its authors didn't even think was necessary as they believed that Fundamental Rights were protected whether they were put in a founding document or not. The wording of the Second Amendment is definitely confusing, but there isn't much doubt that the Framers believed in a right to self-defense and a necessary corollary to that is being able to have the tools to make that right something more than aspirational.
A friend sent me this as a study in what the 2nd Amendment means. What do you think?
[/;i]http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/164311
In Webster's English
Stephen P. Halbrook
Halbrook, an attorney and research fellow at The Independent Institute,
Oakland, Calif., is author of "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of
the Righ i]
Originally posted by PinkFloyd"Trump" might not be the most precise term. But the Constitution only did just that; it constituted a particular form of government. The DOI established the country itself as well as setting forth the basic principles behind it i.e. Lockean Fundamental Rights. One often hears people saying "the Constitution gave us the right to X"; the Framers would be horrified to hear such an incorrect statement.
The Declaration of Independence does not "trump" the U.S. Constitution; in our government, nothing does.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThinkofOne, you are right, the article is weak. At the beginning it stated we had to go back and see what the founding fathers meant by the 2nd Amendment, however, they never quote any of them. Instead they quote Webster.
[/i]Seems pretty weak to me. For example:
[b]"Militia" was defined as "able bodied men organized into companies,
regiments and brigades, with officers ... and required by law to attend
military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations" and "Regulated" as " ... subject to rules or restrictions." A well- ...[text shortened]... If there isn't one, just how necessary is it "to the security of a free State"?
The Webster's deffinition of "Militia" is not the deffinition of "Militia" in the time the Constitution was written. To find the true meaning that was used by the word "Militia", you have to find quotes from the founding fathers on the 2nd Amendment. Here are a few:
"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"...but 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..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms . . ." SAMUEL ADAMS
"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..." George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention
I would say that the founding fathers ment that the 'Militia' is 'the people'. Not some military organization such as the National Gaurd as many would like to say. In fact, I have read many quotes from the founding fathers that indicate they did not want our country to have a standing army.
Originally posted by david haworthi wonder whenever will the "need" for a militia arise. and the most important puzzle is how long will that militia last against a hypothetical oppressive US government that has aircraft, tanks, trained marines and satellite surveillance. it is an important puzzle but quite easily answered.
yes just in case we ever need to assemble a militia.
the problem with rednecks and other people that can't let go of their guns is that they still think they are in the 18th century, when the government had the same weaponry as the militia. when the us can watch you on the toilet doing number two and and then throw a smart bomb down the chimney, there is not much use a rifle will be for you.
the second amendment is obsolete.
Originally posted by ZahlanziNo, the Second Amendment is not obsolete. Do you really think that the men and women in the military would be so quick to bomb their own land where their families live? If they also follow the laws, they are not to use military force on our own soil. The government doesn't want us to have guns because they want a 'New World Order' and they can not do that unless they dissarm everyone.
i wonder whenever will the "need" for a militia arise. and the most important puzzle is how long will that militia last against a hypothetical oppressive US government that has aircraft, tanks, trained marines and satellite surveillance. it is an important puzzle but quite easily answered.
the problem with rednecks and other people that can't let go of t ...[text shortened]... chimney, there is not much use a rifle will be for you.
the second amendment is obsolete.
Do you really believe that us 'rednecks' and 'people that can't let go of their guns' are that stupid as to not know about these things? Most of the very people you generalized there are ex-military themselves. They know what to do about the satellite surveillance, aircrafts, tanks, and those who do not care if they are told to fight against their own people.
Originally posted by ZahlanziHold on now Zahlanzi, don't forget the US has never won a war. The Militias in Iraq are doing prett well, and how about those VC that beat us with sticks and shovels. You KNOW this is true.
i wonder whenever will the "need" for a militia arise. and the most important puzzle is how long will that militia last against a hypothetical oppressive US government that has aircraft, tanks, trained marines and satellite surveillance. it is an important puzzle but quite easily answered.
the problem with rednecks and other people that can't let go of t ...[text shortened]... chimney, there is not much use a rifle will be for you.
the second amendment is obsolete.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by smw6869The U.S. has never won a war?!?
Hold on now Zahlanzi, don't forget the US has never won a war. The Militias in Iraq are doing prett well, and how about those VC that beat us with sticks and shovels. You KNOW this is true.
GRANNY.
The U.S. has won every war that was legally declared ... and lost every war that was illegally declared (i.e. Vietnam, Iraq, etc.)