The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: DonWorsham on December 31, 2007, 09:52:32 AM
-
This is a must read book on the original intent of the Second Amendment.
The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms
David E Young
http://www.secondamendmentinfo.com/
Clearly demonstrates the people have the right to keep and bear arms.
David is also author of The Origin of the Second Amendment. The Origin of the Second Amendment has been cited in two major Circuit Court of Appeals cases to document the individual rights nature of the protection afforded by the Second Amendment. It was most recently cited by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the Parker v District of Columbia Decision handed down March 9, 2007. The Origin of the Second Amendment was also cited well over one hundred times by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the U.S. v Emerson Decision of October 16, 2001.
-
Thanks Don,
I always find that the most difficult part of the argument with the antigunners is discussion of the actual wording of the Second Amendment. That is the part that the antis beat to death. It's always good to have more detail on the totality of the text and intent of the authors through associated writings.
-
The Right Of The PEOPLE, is what the Anti's can't comprehend !
-
The Right Of The PEOPLE, is what the Anti's can't comprehend !
the 2a is about as clear as mud. Even if it was made crystal clear( thru say an amendment to change the text), the supreme court would still be the only group that would be able to tell us what it means. Which I am hoping they will do this year.
If you take in for the "1700" interpretation( of which there are several "versions") there is still alot of grey areas.
One of my big pet peaves is:
insulting some one for thier views that are diffrent from your own, that is the best way I know to get them to discount every argument you present.
-
Sorry, TAB,
Gotta disagree. There is no "grey area". The bill of rights lists rights of the people, period. No other amendment lists a 'collective" right so why would the 2nd be collective? The writings of the time by the authors is very clear that it is a right "of the people".
The "people" is known to mean "indivdual" in ALL other places it is used in the constitution so how can it (2A) be a collective right?
-
the 2a is about as clear as mud.
TAB, read the book it will clear up the mud.
-
Sorry, TAB, Gotta disagree.
I would agree with Hazcat's disagree. If you understand late 18th century writing style, it is quite clear.
The salient points I've heard over the years:
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.
* While the phrases seem jumbled to the modern ear, it was common for the flowery writers of the time to have lots of qualifying phrases early in a thought. Sorta like "We the People, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility..."
* Well regulated -- regulated, in colonial parlance, mean well trained and well equipped...NOT RESTRICTED
* Militia -- this one ought to be put to bed by now but the antis have no sense but lies. The US Code clearly states that the Militia is all able bodied men of a certain age in the US...NOT THE NATIONAL GUARD
* "the right of the people" -- Everywhere else in the Bill of RIghts, "the people" means individuals. No way that the forefathers suddenly changed the meaning in this one amendment to mean collective rights
* "shall not be infringed" -- It doesn't say "we grant you permission subject to being revoked or restricted"....it says, you already have a right ordained by the creator, we are saying that the government shall not infringe that right
Let's go Heller and get this thing settled.
-
A well educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.
Who gets to keep and read books? The "electorate" (people qualified to vote) or all people "collective" (as in libraries only) or the people as in "individuals"? I think the answer is clear.
-
Remember people, it's the gun grabbers that are throwing the mud on the 2nd Amendment. Just wipe it off!
-
Ok so lets take it in 1700s context... Arms was not exclusive to Firearms, it also inculding things like sword, bayonets and etc.
SO lets get to the tricky part, what is and is not an "Arms"?
Now as far as the coment about its the gun graber throwing the mud, you are way off base. Its the US Constitution itself that has made it unclear. The US cons is a Living document, being a living document is it up for interpretation. Lets just take the 1st ammendment.( since its less "polarizing" then the 2a.... remember the US cons is not A La Carte, if it applys to one part it applys to all.)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
1st part is about free religion... So you can pratice any religion of your choicing, how you want, when you want...etc.
Well not really. Lets just say I get bonked on the head, see a "spirt" and it tells me the "truth out life" I publish a book and it becomes a best seller, I get 100k converts to my religion( yay for me), but lets just say that I make my own "10 commandments". If one of those 10 commandments was not to pay taxs or say molest your children--would you be allowed to Practice that religion freely?
Next part, free speach... We all know that free speach is not free, you scream fire in a theater, or go on TV and say "kill bush", lets just say your not going to be free.
Free press, as with free speach we all know the press is not free.
The part about peaceful assembly and petitioning the goverment over grievances, Has been upheld many times, but not with out its restrictions. You can have your "million man march" you just better get a permit 1st.
....
anyways I have to get back to work.
-
Arms are any darn thing you want up to and including nukes.
Back then the public had cannon and battle ships (baddest thing known to man at the time). So if you can afford it, have at it!
-
Mr. Don, isn't the legal question really about the nature of the Constitution and how posterity is to interpret it? Pro-gun seems to read it in a strict constructive light. Literal instructions, to be applied word for word as was. Anti-gunners look at it as a moldable, changeable, adaptable guideline that "needs to change with the times". After all, it's 2008, in the good ole US of A. Who needs a militia? No civilian needs to be under arms. We have grocery stores for Pete's sake. Why hunt? There are no real threats to Democracy that can't be nutralized by abandoning your culture, prosperity and personal security. Government would never seek to impose any form of tyranny on it's
subjects taxpayers. Right?? So the Court will decide if we leave it as it was, or start tinkering. What should be the outcome is clearly different to each side. Each is as fervently convicted in their correctness as the other. In this case, the Justices are the jury. Every jury trial is a gamble. I'm holding my breath. Mac
-
Who needs to hunt? Hell, who needs internet, or $500 I-phones, or motorcycles, or to drive faster than 25 miles per hour?
Besides, equating the Second Amendment to hunting is a load of slop from the south end of a northbound cow. The Founding Fathers weren't thinking "oh, the people need hunting rifles." They were thinking "the people need the equivalent arms as the military or any police force to prevent the possibility of either group maintaining an oppressive edge of superiority over those they are meant to serve."
So, if the American public can't have semi-auto weapons, the US military and city and federal law enforcement agencies should be mandated to destroy THEIR semi-autos, and their full-autos to prevent the possibility of abuse of power. As that would make police forces and our military vulnerable in extremis, the only sensible option is to NOT limit the small arms choices of the American citizenry.
It's a pipe dream, but hey, I don't want the mass executions like they have in China, or had during the Cambodian, Vietnamese, and German crises of the past century or so.
-
By golly, it sounds like 1776 all over again. Down by the Concord Bridge. Hold your fire a bit. Let'em get a little closer. Patience and resolve will win the day. Who says there is no modern militia? Mac.
-
By golly, it sounds like 1776 all over again. Down by the Concord Bridge. ...Who says there is no modern militia?
If you want a solid dose of that sentiment, attend a 2-day Appleseed course. Fred and/or the instructors will give you a history lesson and talk about the self reliance of Americans and the American rifleman. While not explicitly stated, there is and implicit message (at least that's what I heard from it) that we need to stand ready for the call.
When it comes, the internet will be our "messenger riding from town to town". Beating our chest...yeah, but that's what it may take...hopefully not...but maybe.
In this order:
* Soap box
* Ballot box
* Ammunition box
-
Their was a Supreme court case , Cruickshank (spelling?) V US that found that the Constitution did NOT provide a PERSONAL right to own arms. The gungrabbers love this sentance, They hate the next sentance though as it states that the right PREEXISTED the constitution. Kilopaparomeois correct when he points out that all other amendments use the phrase "the People"to mean Individuals, besides, Government does not have Rights, It has SPECIFIED POWERS.
TAB, You use interesting examples, my gut tells me you are on the wrong track but I lack the education on these other amendments to counter them. Hopefully someone else will handle it. Any lawyers out there?
-
I didn't notice the second page of comments before my last post, ( blame it on 4AM) but Mac and anyone else who snickers at the "armed revolt arguement" REALLY needs to read the "Federalist Papers " and get a sense of what the Founders were thinking , in their own words. Phrases like " Let no man be debarred the use of arms" don't leave much doubt. Our Service Men and Women swear to "protect the Constitution against all threats , foreign and DOMESTIC". Though Abraham Lincoln came much later, He said " When the Legislature is in session, niether a mans Liberty or Property are safe.
-
Regret it came across that way Tombog, just an obviously lacking attempt at sarcasm. Worry not, if the time comes, I'll meet you and all the others at the bridge. And I've got friends, with very good equipment and lifetimes of experience defending the Constitution, who will join us. Respectfully, Mac.
-
Hey Mac, I hope you and your Friends are getting more practice than me , it's been COLD here lately.
-
This is a new reply to an old series of posts. I am the author and editor of the books Don Warsham has mentioned in this topic. Don Attended the Gun Rights Policy Conference sponsored by the Second Amendment Foundation last year. It was held in late September in Fort Mitchell, KY, just outside of Cincinnati, Ohio.
The book he mentions, The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, was not yet published when I met Don there. We sat next to each other during the conference and I let Don look at a pre-publication copy of the book. Only he and Dave Hardy actually looked at the book at that time. Dave Hardy's remarks about it can be found on my website at http://www.secondamendmentinfo.com .
If you want to know every detail of the Second Amendment's history and the American origin of its terms and their authors, you should read this book.
-
The part of the 2nd Amendment that Socialists use to muddy it's meaning is the reference to "a well regulated Militia"That was settled quite plainly at the time by Mason, who asked " Who constitutes the Militia ?"and then answered his own question, "The Militia consists of the whole of the people."
Any one who still maintains there is ambiguity in the 2A after 30+ years of this information being bandied about is either stupid or intentionally misrepresenting the case to advance a socialist agenda.
In view of the Miller decision regarding Arms not useful to the militia, the govt may retain the right to regulate things like T/C Contenders and .22's but NOT machineguns and anti tank weapons, as the latter are clearly of use to the Militia and the Declaration of Independence references to throwing off oppressive govt's clearly indicates that the purpose of any future guarantee of right to arms was not concerned with any "sporting purpose" but to assure the ability of the citizenry to resist authority, and kill politicians who overstepped the bounds placed upon them.