Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Thanks for attempting to clear this up. It's quite confusing. In modern convention, the sentence is actually confusing because of the commas. (As Will has commented on.) I read this interesting article that offers a modernized paraphrase of it for us (bearing in mind the grammatical conventions of the day in comparison to today):
Since a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State[,] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. But the article goes on about how it is still unclear. The right shall not be infringed by whom? (They suggest it should have been written in the active voice: e.g. "The Federal government shall not infringe....") |
After having read the federalist/anti-federalist papers, I pondered two conclusions about the Second Amendment.
One, that the 2nd Amendment was a concession by the federalists to give confidence to the anti-federalists that firearms in the hands of the people would never be restricted. That the 'well regulated militia' was a unifying force made up of the people to ensure freedom and security from an overbearing central government. Remember that these people had experienced firsthand oppression by the military arm of their king.
Two, that the federalists were adamant that the security of a free state/nation REQUIRED a standing army, or a 'well regulated militia', but that to guarantee that the people would never be subject to future oppression from this standing army, the right of the people to keep and bear arms would never be infringed so that their power would be greater than the standing army, should it be necessary.
Since the ratification of the 13th Amendment, It has been accepted that the bill of rights only restricts the federal government and that the 14th Amendment applies those restrictions to the states as well ONLY WHEN the USSC incorporates that right under the 14th. This makes little sense considering that the entrance of a state in to the union is a two way contract with the union and the state, the state accepting the terms of the constitution and the union protecting the rights of the people in that new state. Prior to the slaughterhouse cases, I know of no such USSC case that even hinted that the bill of rights didn't apply to the states as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
But the most interesting point in the article to me was how they point out that since the clause "Well-regulated militia..." is there, instead of just "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," it cannot be ignored. What does this mean, then? To me, it seems, the "right" falls under the context of the militia, and that "the people" have the right to bear arms only within the confines of what would be considered "well regulated," i.e. no blank cheque. Also, "the people" is a collective noun. Foggy. The second amendment isn't about an individual's right; it's about a group's right. The group should be well-regulated, as the framers have suggested. (Again, no blank cheque.) Do you not want this "security" for your "free state"?
|
the people is no more collective in the 2nd than it is in the 1st, 4th, 5th, or 9th.
One must remember that the constitution is not an outline of the rights that belong to the people, but a legal document that enumerates specific powers that the federal government is given. The bill of rights was the concession to ensure that certain rights would NEVER be trod upon by the central government, something that the founders were all too familiar with. That is why it absolutey galls me to hear people say that rights are not absolute, that they all are allowed limitations and restrictions. This was a judicial theory that justice Holmes put forth in 1919 concerning a case about the espionage act and it's implications against free speech. Until then, it was considered that rights were absolute or they were not rights.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 02 : 59 : 53-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
It was grammatically incorrect when it was written, actually.
|
are you saying that madison, hamilton, and others who were considered scholars were actually high school dropouts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
The intent of the Second Amendment, originally, was to legally protect the right of insurrection against oppression. It had absolutely nothing to do with self-defense. The "well regulated militia" referred to the militia present at the time of the signing, which consisted of able-bodied males between 18 and 45. The intent was that a militia would be a counterbalance for a federal military. Nowhere does it say that a well regulated militia refers to the entire population.
|
Those able bodied males were citizens though, not regular military. Does that negate a right of the people then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
But times change, which is why the framers wanted the courts to be able to interpret laws and the legislature to be able to pass amendments. Sedentary laws cannot endure
|
I vehemently disagree that the founders wanted the courts to interpret laws based on the future. The founders realized that change was inevitable and put in a very exact method of amending the constitution if needs be changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Of course all of this is moot. The SCOTUS gave a ruling a few months back and it's surprisingly clear. You can have a gun, but there will be reasonable limits.
|
great, is reasonable limits going to one day be single shot muskets again? bows and arrows?
when will people realize that if you put the direction of your lives and rights in the hands of government, they will become severely limited.