Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Smooth, correct me if i'm wrong, but you seem to be attempting to make the claim that the half dozen different people I quoted as 'framers', declaring that all freemen have the natural right to bear arms, is the opposite of what those who 'ratified' the constitution and later ratified the first ten amendments specifically protecting individual rights was nothing but a sham presented to the 'rowdy farmers' making them believe they had these rights, when in fact that is not the case.
Is this what you are attempting to say?
|
Well, to be honest, I didn't see you quote half a dozen different people on this subject. And of the quotes of yours I did read, none of them seemed to state explicitly what you interpret from them and they aren't from legislative meetings so I'm not sure what bearing they would or should have on interpreting the law as it was intended.
Aside from that, I'm not claiming that anyone necessarily thought opposite of one another. and I'm not suggesting a mere two sides to this issue. I don't even link the 2nd amendment to anything at all about the farmers I was referring to, other than to suggest that the people arguing over what to include in our early documents were thinking in a particular milliue and referenced things they felt were most salient, not necessarily what would secure one's freedom on an objective level. we don't for example see any statements about the deity granted right to read...yet we see the right to freedom of the press, and guns, to take two examples of things the people and their representatives thought had been essential to securing their right to exist as an autonomous nation-state.
I'm simply trying to point out that you are melding a lot of people into a one-mindset mentality, as if you could do so from the votes cast or various statements made and recorded. This is perhaps the best example I can give you:
you, roachboy, jazz, and I are sitting around a table. you suggest that god gave us a right and responsibility to arm ourselves. roachboy thinks perhaps it's a good idea to maintain personal weapons, but not have a standing army. he also thinks in his head, maybe even says as much, that the concept of an active god is silly and so 16th century. I'd rather we have a standing army of sorts, but I see I'm already outvoted, unless jazz is on my side and we've stalemated. rather than risk it, I suggest we word our new legislation to point to the states' responsibilities to maintain order in regards to private ownership of weapons. I don't really care how it's done, I'm agnostic on the whole god thing, but I really think we should make sure we've got some way to protect our new society. jazz doesn't like what any of us are saying for various reasons and leaves the room.
so we write our stuff up and send it over to our colleugues to all vote on. jazz actually votes with us because we agreed to help him out with his free speech thingy...
a couple hundred years roll by and some people start bunting ideas around on an internet board. one of them happens to dig up an op-ed you wrote in the new york times about god giving everyone a right to own weapons. they find a reply by me to you that sure, we all know "god" works in mysterious ways and all that, but it's our responsibility to defend ourselves. he aint going to do it, so whatever else happens, we better maintain a militia. someone notices that all four of us, you, me, roachboy, and jazz voted for the right and assumes that means we all believed in a god given right to have weapons.
3 of us didn't, one of us did. but we all agreed on the end product...what gives?
well, for starters, there isn't anything in the amendment about god giving us that right. so whatever. we can debate on who thought what at the time, but it's all just meandering ramblings. the only meat we have to go on is the stuff that was codified.
now there's lots of valid reasons to argue for private ownership of weapons
there's lots of valid reasons to argue for ownership of weapons to be understood as a defense of the state affair, as opposed to a walk about town affair or keeping a sawed off shotty, tech9, or sks for sport shooting
but there isn't much need to argue over whether the people writing the documents believed in a god-given right to such weapons. as if that makes the claim even more legitimate. it is either legit or it;s not to my mind. you either have a good argument or you don't. it's either valid or invalid, for my purposes. and arguing from tradition or an appeal to higher authority doesn't state your case for you. and as if that wasn't enough, enter all the issues roachboy was trying to lay out...and hopefully my example illuminates why we both think you run into all sorts of problems when trying to decipher meaning of legislative manuevers in the manner you are trying to do.
I know it's not the middle of the night, but I'm just popping in from my supposed studying for comps so I shouldn't even be here. hopefully this quick and dirty post clarifies what I was trying to get at when I stopped by earlier.
my opposition to your argument stemmed from the way in which you laid it out, not some fundamental disagreement I have with private gun ownership (because I don't have one, for one thing).