Concerning the Second Amendment

[DonWorsham]

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.

[jaybet]

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.

[blackhawk]

The Right Of The PEOPLE, is what the Anti's can't comprehend !

[TAB]

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.

[Hazcat]

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?

[Sponsor]

[DonWorsham]

the 2a is about as clear as mud.   

TAB, read the book it will clear up the mud.

[kilopaparomeo]

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.

[Hazcat]

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.

[ismram]

Remember people, it's the gun grabbers that are throwing the mud on the 2nd Amendment. Just wipe it off!

[TAB]

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.