Relevancy of 2nd amendment - Page 4

Publius Infinitum · #31 (**permalink**) 03-27-2008, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hendrixpujols11

better ways to protect yourself: pepper spray, martial arts, better home security, watch dog, etc.

There is no change in the principle of which the 2nd amendment rests. The PRINCIPLE is the same, but there are other ways to ensure this right. The principle on which the 2nd amendment was written was that the people must be able to "check" the government's power. The 2nd amendment was created to protect the people, but thousands of people are dying in a year because of it. THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO STOP THE GOVERNMENT FROM BEING TOO POWERFUL!

No sir... thousands of people a year are dying... but not one because of the second amendment. Not the first one...

Tarheeler · #32 (**permalink**) 03-27-2008, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius Infinitum

NO... Ya don't.

The reasoning for the protections, is offered as a reminder to future generations of the obligations inherent from the RIGHT.

For instance... let's try this:

"Being necessary to the entertainment of the people, the right to keep and read books shall not be infringed"

Now today very few people read books for entertainment. So would you argue that this should be used as reasoning for stripping us of our right to keep and read books?

Sure... you can argue that some people still read for entertainment, but they are such a stark minority that the protection is no longer relevant. You may also argue that books are used for other purposes, such as education and keeping of records… but when you do so you argue the right, not the reasoning established in example for the protection represented in the amendment.

The same is true in the 2nd amendment; the right to keep and bear arms is essential in the individual’s means to protect themselves; thus the collective: ‘The People” are protected through that immutable principle.

I agree with you here... but when the government looks at the 2nd amendment, its the meaning of militia that they look at. That is what they want use to decide if its a personal right.

C-D-P · #33 (**permalink**) 03-27-2008, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarheeler

I agree with you here... but when the government looks at the 2nd amendment, its the meaning of militia that they look at. That is what they want use to decide if its a personal right.

I hear ya brother. And many know that this is the debate among them right now. But that is only because they either, already know that it is supposed to me the people (because it says the people, not as it would in those days Those peoples) and are only looking for another way to control guns, or are ignorant fools that do not understand the usage of English in our early history. Either way, it proves that they are idiots.

Silent No Longer · #34 (**permalink**) 03-27-2008, 05:28 PM

[quote=sunnyside;467840]Look people the founding fathers realized that the consitution could require updating. They even made a method for it.

Meaning if part of it is outdated

YOU MAKE A FREAKING AMENDMENT!

It doesn't matter if they said that we get to have arms in order to make swiss cheese. You can't just toss out "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" until you pass an Amendment.

You don't just try and weasel around it or get someone to legislate from the bench for you.

It is hard to improve on this answer, I will only add that the Bill Of Rights should forever remain in tact as is.

Europe Rick · #35 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hendrixpujols11

It's true that it does clearly state that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but you are taking it out of context. "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." You just can't leave out part of it and state the second part favorable to you. By "paraphrasing", you are changing the meaning of the text.

By your profound ignorance of the fundamental principles of our republic and your profound ignorance of the linguistics and lexicon of the founders you are attempting to sell a change in the meaning of the text . . .

We ain't buying it!

The founders were well acquainted with and embraced the principles of classic republics; one of the inherent components to that system is an armed citizenry. No such entity defined as "well regulated militia" was established, defined, demanded or compelled to exist by the 2nd Amendment.

The founders were also quite familiar with and well versed in the literary classics and classical languages such as Latin. Your position that the declaratory clause conditions the right is without linguistic support. The framers would never predicate a new vague and subjective mandate for some program of militia training and structure (and thus modifying Art I §8 powers) on an absolute phrase . . .

An absolute phrase might explain why what follows could happen or perhaps why it may be prudent to take the following action but it does not establish a rule or change or condition or create a dependency on what follows.

Let's examine a very simple one (inactive absolute declaration underlined, actionable imperative follows):

All things considered, it’s not a bad idea.

Deciding whether or not the idea is bad or not, does not depend on if all things were actually, truthfully and exhaustively considered or if that anything at all must be considered to in fact decide if the idea is bad or not.

Let's try another simple one to make sure the principle is understood:

The teacher being ill, class is canceled.

~Can the class only be canceled if the teacher is sick?
~What if he is lying about being sick and is actually out playing golf; is class still canceled?
~Must class always be canceled if the teacher is ill?
~What if the teacher is ill but toughs it out and comes in, can the class be held?

Let's move on . . . Let's see if we can force reading qualifications and conditions onto the restrictive clause in sentences grammatically constructed like the 2nd Amendment with an declaratory absolute clause preceding the actionable, restrictive clause . . .

A well maintained road system being necessary to efficiently commute to and from work, the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles shall not be infringed.

~Can the people only use automobiles to commute to and from work?
~Are retired persons or housewives or the independently wealthy to be "deautoed" because they do not work?
~Can the people only drive on a governmentally maintained road system?
~Can they only drive on those specific roads and routes deemed by the government to be necessary and the most efficient for commuting? Ergo, are the people barred from taking a scenic route to and from work, is the most efficient route the only one deemed "legal?"

One more:

A well educated electorate being necessary for the perpetuation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

~Can only those people registered to vote (the electorate) keep and read books?
~Can only those books deemed "necessary to the perpetuation of a free state" be owned and read?
~Can books deemed NOT "necessary to the perpetuation of a free state" be banned?
~Can books that openly threaten the "perpetuation of a free state" be banned?
~Can only those with an government certified IQ above 100 and deemed "well educated" by the government, keep and read books?

Expecting to fully understand the 2nd when one is completely ignorant of the principles behind it is folly and leads to exactly the positions you have posited. You are giving the 2nd a cursory reading applying modern definitions and inferences to the linguistics and lexicon of the founders and that leads you to incorrect opinions on the meaning and the interpretation of the 2nd.

Your position fails on another fundamental principle. In order to argue that certain words of the 2nd's impart conditions, qualifications and exceptions on the right, requires one to hold the position that the right to arms emanates from those words and that construction.

In arguing that, one is arguing against the fundamental constitutional principle that rights are not granted, conferred or established by the Bill of Rights and ignoring direct Supreme Court precedent which reaffirms that principle multiple times.

If one is to believe SCOTUS when it says the right to arms preexisted the Constitution, is not granted by the Constitution and the right is in no way dependent upon the Constitution for its existence, how can one believe the words upon which the right DOES NOT DEPEND can be "interpreted" to dictate the scope and extent of the right to arms and condition and qualify its exercise?

Wildbore · #36 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyBob

People are the same now as then and are entitled to the rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

The 2nd amendment is useless. It continues to exist more for historical symbolic reasons more than practical ones.

In practicality, people have the right to own property, this includes forks, books, cars, and, dadada....... GUNS!!!

Abolishing it won't change the fact that gun ownership will continue to exist, because its a right that transcends the narrow and short-sighted focus of the second amendment.

Thats why all modern bills of rights exclude the right to bear arms, in favour of property rights and security of person rights which tend to endure the stages of history.

Qwerty · #37 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 05:52 AM

When can I buy a RPG's and Tanks? It's my right!!!!

C-D-P · #38 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qwerty

When can I buy a RPG's and Tanks? It's my right!!!!

You can legally buy grenade launchers and what not. But it is much more difficult, and there are annual taxes that you must pay. There are civilians that do own tanks.

Wildbore · #39 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qwerty

When can I buy a RPG's and Tanks? It's my right!!!!

Obviously there are reasonable restrictions on arms. It should go without saying that for national security and public safety purposes some items are restricted from civilian ownership.

Blade · #40 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 07:43 AM

The "militia" argument is silly - the Bill of Rights represents prerogatives of individuals as a defense against government power. (Go read them.) To interpret the Second Amendment as merely allowing the establishment of a militia, a government entity, stands this on its head.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Second Amendment Carnival XV	ArmedBlog	Political Blogs	0	01-17-2008 10:24 PM
The Tenth Amendment	nonsqtr	Political Opinions & Beliefs	67	09-23-2007 03:54 AM
SECOND AMENDMENT ASSAULTS:	WhiteJackel	Gun Control	5	09-17-2006 05:14 AM
The amendment is UNCONSTITUTIONAL	Freedomisntfree	Gay & Lesbian Rights	7	05-10-2004 06:52 PM