Of course, this doesn't have direct bearing against the Constitution. I believe the first Virginia Declaration of Rights had no provision related to the right to bear arms, a startling oversight if they considered it to be such a basic right. In addition, what we need to decide this issue is not a few asides from several people of the time, but evidence as to what was discussed and decided when the amendment was enacted.
See above, and the articles below. It appears that the Second Amendment was more a part of the slavery compromise than even a general guarantee of a right to serve in a militia.
In the end, all insurrectionist theories must fail. It is inherently illogical to suppose that the Framers wished to guarantee private individuals the power to overthrow the government they were constructing, for whatever reason they wished (guns are amoral).
I am not saying that there did not appear in the annals of world society at the time some evidence of general thought on both sides regarding the right to bear arms (and there is plenty of discussion about the militia angle, too). However, the mere mention of Blackstone's name or theories in a letter etc. from the period does not indicate that his or complementary theories carried the day... and that's what you would need.
Again, a prominent global discussion doesn't bear all that much on the meaning of the Second Amendment. It just indicates facts and arguments of which the drafters were aware.
Yes, an awareness of the theory of such a right, and a recognition of it elsewhere, and even a tendency on the part of a few to argue for it here. However, this is a far cry from awareness/recognition of an existing right here.
A few interesting articles:
one two three
In the end, of course, arguments for an individual have to get past four or five very influential Supreme Court decisions, and the wording of the amendment itself, which indicates the reason in plain language for the inclusion of the amendment.
For the record, I am for the individual right to possess firearms. I just don't think it's obvious that it is guaranteed by the Constitution-- in fact, it seems that it is not. I don't see any chance in hell that there will ever be an amendment prohibiting individual possession; the biggest thing to fear is a Supreme Court decision clearly stating, once and for all, that the guaranteed right is a "collective" right. And that could well happen in our lifetime... but to keep things in perspective, the only effect would be to leave it up to the states whether to recognize an individual right or not.
Lets take a quick look at other times people is used
So I guess that means the state milita has the right to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, but individuals do not.
Odd here when talking about the military the framers use the word soldiers instead of people.
I really don't see why only the militia should have this rights.
Any claim that people, in the bill of rights doesn't refer to all people (while white men but that is a different thread) is completely BS.
So I guess that means the state milita has the right to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, but individuals do not.
Odd here when talking about the military the framers use the word soldiers instead of people.
I really don't see why only the militia should have this rights.
Any claim that people, in the bill of rights doesn't refer to all people (while white men but that is a different thread) is completely BS.
Two problems. First, the other places are not introduced in the context of a need for militias, and the words "bear arms" smack of some sort of military service (although this does not imply being a professional soldier). The use of "soldier" is not odd; a soldier is not a private citizen but a member of the military.
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
Thats not true. Hence the saying "enemies foreign and domestic. The founding Fathers knew very well that government could become too controlling. One reason for the right to bear arms is to overthrow a dictator type government.
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
What do you think scares the government more.
Individuals owning firearms, or individuals banding together and forming militias and owning firearms?
It does have direct bearing on the Constitution, because nothing exists in a vacuum. The framers didn't create anything out of nothing, they reacted to the prevailing debates and considerations of the day and argued their way to compromises. Anything they came up with is a nearly direct result of what they were exposed to. That's how life works: we grow up within an environment subject to the ideas and beliefs of all those around us...we take some, modify some, and disregard some. In the end our own thoughts are little more than a synthesis of those all around us. Nothing new on heaven or earth sort of thing. This is more than idle conjecture an theory, it's the fundamental basis of all thought and human activity. Hence, the writings and philosophies of major thinkers of the time ARE directly related to the intent of the framers. As to what was discussed, yes, that's important too. The largest focus of the 2nd during the time was how to allow religious exemption from military service (ie do Quakers have to be a part of the militia). That's the majority of writing. There is more however, such as Jefferson and Madison writings which are laced with references to the things I'm talking about. I gave a couple examples, but there are volumes available.
It is inherently illogical to assume the framers were unmoved by the ENORMOUS body of work dedicated to the right of the citizen to rise up against the government...especially given the fact that America was created in exactly that way. The framers were FIRM believers in the right of the citizenry to overpower the government, though I never said it should be possible at a whim. There is such an incredible body of philosophy, political science, and so on dedicated to these ideas that argument against their weight on the minds of the framers is ignorant, if not outright lunacy.
You are saying what the supreme court says is what we MUST accept. I am saying that intent is what we MUST fight for, no matter the cost. Let's not forget that the Supreme court has made some monumentally unjust (and borderline illegal) decisions. Of course, so has every other branch of government. Just because the court or congress says a thing is a certain way does not make it so, nor does it morally or ethically require our consent. We are not subjects of the government however, the members of government (including every justice on every court) are our representatives and servants. You are arguing for law, I am arguing for justice. The two aren't wholly incompatible, but we have to acknowledge what we are dealing with. There is truth in the world, as well as opinion and belief, and these things too are we beholden to. I'm not saying there was consensus on the exact meaning and scope of the 2nd amendment, I'm arguing that the total knowledge and considerations of the framers regarding any piece of legislation carries more weight (to me) than subsequent interpretations by unavoidably biased courts.
Your problems are twofold. First, you abuse the word "direct". Evidence of some global theories of the day does not mean that the Constitution was written in agreement with them. "Direct" evidence would be notes by the participants saying that they had written the legislation with those theories specifically in mind. Also, you rely too heavily on just one or two people. There were many at the conference. So you have no direct evidence, and your offhand mentions in letters etc. come only from a few people.
No. The enormity of a body of work (which is not such, but rather scattered references and theories that do not comprise a single body, but I will not debate it because it's a waste of time) does not establish even that the framers were moved. It certainly doesn't establish their legislative intent. Similarly, my reading a story about revolution in the New York Times do not establish my revolutionary intent.
Sorry, the fact that the U.S. arose by revolt does not support your argument. If anything, the framers would have been worried about setting up the government to avoid or prevent revolt-- and chief on their list was not ensuring the right to revolt.
Nope. You can pull up a few incendiary quotes from George Mason et al. made in the attempts to sway other people's minds, perhaps. The framers were definitely not believers in the right of the citizenry to overpower the government. Else they would have sent military aid to the citizens of New Hampshire in their attempt to overthrow the state government.
I didn't say you said it. It is a direct, logical consequence of a position that guns must be allowed to the citizenry in order to give them a right to revolt. When you put power in the hands of those not under your control, you are at their whim. This whole "right of revolt" thing is ridiculous-- you should drop it. They would have enumerated it as a right for sure if that were intended.
Stating that global political ideas are direct evidence of legislative intent in America is lunacy and poor scholarship, if not an outright lie.
You can't fight city hall. You are not fighting the good fight here, just posting on a discussion board. In what way are you fighting?
Don't take my word for it, but you do indeed have to accept what the Supreme Court says. Maybe I'll see you on the news someday, being shot down next to Specop 007 by the National Guard after the Supreme Court rules that you never had an individual right to possess a firearm guaranteed by the Constitution.The fact that they may have made unjust decisiosn doesn't change the fact that they are the authority when it comes to the Constiution, period. And it doesn't change the fact that you are bound by their decisions, whether you agree with them or not.
Yes, in this case it does, because the Supreme Court's most major function is to define what the Constitution means. In other words, you don't know what the Constitution means until they tell you-- although you may argue otherwise on an anonymous forum until you're blue in the face.
I'm not arguing against justice, just stating things the way they are. The law of the United States is what holds us together, not desires by gun aficionados or anyone else. You want the right to do something that is not in the law, make sure it's put there. If something is not in the Constitution that needs to be, it's time for an amendment-- not shaky readings in support of a position in direct conflict with the final authority on the matter.
Your own interpretation is unavoidably biased. You have a picture of a few bits of knowledge and consideration and are drawing hasty conclusions.
No, there is no individual right to bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution. If there were, it certainly would not be in order to overthrow the government. The oath to which you refer certainly does not, when soldiers are sworn in, encourage them to attack the government as a "domestic enemy". :laugh: A domestic enemy could be, for instance, a misguided revolt by the citizenry...
Neither. State militias are largely unnecessary and certainly don't scare the government. Citizens with rifles certainly don't scare the government... it can easily quash any rebellion you can mount.
(tanks + planes + missiles + bombs + rifles + soldiers) > (you + rifles)
You sound like you are in the Guard or something and remind me of the guy that went nuts in Earthquake against Victoria Principal.
Are you itching to pull the trigger on fellow American citizens?
Sorry, can't keep up with you in the pop culture area here. I will just note that you are widely known as a wack job on this forum. No, I am not in the Guard or something. It's curious that you don't accuse Specop 007, a borderline revolutionary, of itching to pull the trigger on his fellow citizens if he doesn't get his way.
I think you were going for the "confused" smiley and got the wrong one. These are completely different from quashing a rebellion here in America. In both cases we were not allowed to take many measures the government would certainly take in quashing a real rebellion, such as forced internment, and the complete armed forces were never deployed in either area. Don't believe me, that's fine... live with your delusions of grandeur.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,633
- 2,025
- 126
No, I was rolling my eyes at you, hence the smiley...
Vietnam and Iraq are perfect examples of what a determined "militia" can do against the worlds strongest military. Guerilla warfare works, its worked for thousands of years, it will probably always work.
Yeah, you're probably not old enough to have seen that movie, it was from the mid 1970's.
Yes, labels are a fun thing, Whack Job, Moron, Asshole, you name it but guess what?
I'm a American and that is the only important "label".
Oh and Spec is certainly right up there along with you.
Again, nothing like quashing an armed insurrection here. Measures were not taken that would be taken to quash a rebellion, and the complete force of the military was never brought to bear. Enjoy your delusions.
I don't see what that has to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion it isn't like you can't put down a rebellion with muskets and horses.
There's a good example, actually. The government did not stand back and permit the lawful exercise of a Constitutional right to revolt. :laugh: And that was when the ink was barely dry on the Constitution.
From that article: "The military suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion set a precedent that U.S. citizens who wished to change the law had to do so peacefully through constitutional means; otherwise, the government would meet any threats to disturb the peace with force."
Interesting debate Prince and 6000.
I am fascinated by the notions and relationship between law and justice and the evolution of the latter toward the former. Is there nothing truly new in the world or does justice evolve as we do. Are we moving toward an absolute or does justice move around according to changing circumstance. The framers refereed to inalienable rights but were themselves miles away from where we think we are today in insuring them for all people, no? Clearly slaves had a right to freedom when the Constitution was penned and yet they didn't have that freedom in fact. What the framers intended is not what they intended, apparently.
I would speculate that if our culture were to move far in the direction of personal gun violence causing the death of many many members of society who make it a habit to vote, we could see some change in what we now have as rights. I could see a situation in which, without arms, we could similarly move in a direction where we might also have less of other rights. It seems that ultimately our laws are in some ways our effort to make common sense out of change over time. What is absolute changes over time?
I am fascinated by the notions and relationship between law and justice and the evolution of the latter toward the former. Is there nothing truly new in the world or does justice evolve as we do. Are we moving toward an absolute or does justice move around according to changing circumstance. The framers refereed to inalienable rights but were themselves miles away from where we think we are today in insuring them for all people, no? Clearly slaves had a right to freedom when the Constitution was penned and yet they didn't have that freedom in fact. What the framers intended is not what they intended, apparently.
I would speculate that if our culture were to move far in the direction of personal gun violence causing the death of many many members of society who make it a habit to vote, we could see some change in what we now have as rights. I could see a situation in which, without arms, we could similarly move in a direction where we might also have less of other rights. It seems that ultimately our laws are in some ways our effort to make common sense out of change over time. What is absolute changes over time?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter