Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.



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-----
are you saying that madison, hamilton, and others who were considered scholars were actually high school dropouts?

Those able bodied males were citizens though, not regular military. Does that negate a right of the people then?

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.


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.

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Praise the lord! Neither point is viable.

The happy medium is what we're really arguing over.

(since no pro-gun guy here actually suggested the ridiculous notion of zero restrictions on "weapon" ownership)