Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

dksuddeth · 04-12-2006, 04:50 PM

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.

Not since the Kelo v. New London decision has a constitutional amendment been so hotly debated. Currently, there are three interpretations of this amendment. The individual right, the collective right (states right), and the limited individual right.

My opinion is that this amendment affords ALL citizens the right to keep and bear arms. This is proven by many points as listed below.

1) The many quotes from the founding fathers that were recorded during the conventions which explicitly claim an individual right to keep and bear arms.

2) In the Bill of Rights, 'the people' is mentioned 5 times. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th. In numerous court decisions, 'the people' has always been referred to 'individual' rights when it concerns the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th, yet most circuit courts tend to interpret the 2nd as a collective right. I hardly think the founding fathers would throw a states right in the Bill of Rights that apply to individuals. The 5th and 6th amendments also refer to 'individual' rights via 'person' and 'accused' respectively.

3) The constitution was written to specifically authorize certain 'powers' to the government, both federal and state, while the 9th specifically says The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. meaning that only the people have rights, and they have ALL rights that are not specifically addressed as powers to the government.

Many arguments and debates that have centered around the second amendment have focused largely on the 1939 US v. Miller court ruling as direct adjudication of the 'collective' right, but in actuality, the 39 decision is so vague and only references the militia in regards to the short barreled shotgun of the case.

To this day, there has been no definitive case deciding that the second is indeed an individual right, but there are 35 cases where the 'right' is referred to as an individual right in the opinions citing the dicta of those cases.

The 2nd amendment is an individual right, not a collective right, since the state governments only retain 'powers, and the people retain 'rights'.

04-12-2006, 04:50 PM	#1 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	Second Amendment 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. Not since the Kelo v. New London decision has a constitutional amendment been so hotly debated. Currently, there are three interpretations of this amendment. The individual right, the collective right (states right), and the limited individual right. My opinion is that this amendment affords ALL citizens the right to keep and bear arms. This is proven by many points as listed below. 1) The many quotes from the founding fathers that were recorded during the conventions which explicitly claim an individual right to keep and bear arms. 2) In the Bill of Rights, 'the people' is mentioned 5 times. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th. In numerous court decisions, 'the people' has always been referred to 'individual' rights when it concerns the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th, yet most circuit courts tend to interpret the 2nd as a collective right. I hardly think the founding fathers would throw a states right in the Bill of Rights that apply to individuals. The 5th and 6th amendments also refer to 'individual' rights via 'person' and 'accused' respectively. 3) The constitution was written to specifically authorize certain 'powers' to the government, both federal and state, while the 9th specifically says The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. meaning that only the people have rights, and they have ALL rights that are not specifically addressed as powers to the government. Many arguments and debates that have centered around the second amendment have focused largely on the 1939 US v. Miller court ruling as direct adjudication of the 'collective' right, but in actuality, the 39 decision is so vague and only references the militia in regards to the short barreled shotgun of the case. To this day, there has been no definitive case deciding that the second is indeed an individual right, but there are 35 cases where the 'right' is referred to as an individual right in the opinions citing the dicta of those cases. The 2nd amendment is an individual right, not a collective right, since the state governments only retain 'powers, and the people retain 'rights'. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."