tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post1425911711495943341..comments2024-03-07T02:17:34.434-08:00Comments on Tom In Paine: 2nd amendment ignorance and pandering at NRA annual meetingMarc Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-4794091569658662532014-04-19T13:20:04.641-07:002014-04-19T13:20:04.641-07:00"Even if the first part of the 2nd Amendment ..."Even if the first part of the 2nd Amendment is not prefatory, and we were to assume that the right to bear arms was meant to be limited to the militia; the militia is comprised of every able bodied man between the ages of 17 - 45."<br /><br />It is not which, aside from simply applying the actual meaning of the words in the second amendment it also helps to do what the 5 conservative members of this court clearly did not do which is read the actual debates which exist and follow the history.<br /><br />There is a version of the 2nd amendement which specfically excludes any man "who has scruples against bearing arms". If you read the debates you know they were referring to Quakers. Quakers owned guns. They used them to hunt as did most people and to protect their livestock from predators. What they religiously could not do is kill another person. The reason this clause had been there originally was to exempt Quakers from "bearing arms" which, if one knew nothing else, would make it clear that "bearing arms" has NOTHING to do with owning a gun which Quakers did. "Bearing arms" meant only one thing -- going to war. And that and that alone is what the 2nd amendment is all about -- giving the states the right to maintain their own armed militias (whether men brought their own guns or they were provided by the state which they were in many cases is besides the point) and giving them the right to go to war against any enemy that threatened their sovereignity. That's it. It had nothing to do with anyone's individual right to own a gun which has always been left up to the states, towns, cities, hamlets or villages to enact whatever gun laws they wished. Including a town banning them if thats what they wanted to do. It would have no affect on a state militia. Which is why every supreme court in it's first 224 years when having to rule on whether the 2nd amendment had anything to do with an individiual right to own a gun ruled it did not. Which is why the 2008 decision, which Scalia almost immediately undercut in his own opinion, was one of the most corrupt in the history of the court. Alito's opinion quoted from Blackstone's Rights of Englishmen as a basis for the decision which isnt even American much less the constitution itself, and overturned 224 years of court precedent with no constitutional basis whatsoever based on the concept of Original Intent. <br /><br />If one wants to make an argument about the 2nd amendment using the most liberal interpretation, that is, the words can mean whatever we want them to mean now and what the Founders meant and intended means nothing today, I have nothing to say about that. But based on Original Intent and what the amendment was created to do and the problem it was created to address it has absolutely nothing to do with a right to own a gun.Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-66765621764995148482014-04-17T19:10:05.266-07:002014-04-17T19:10:05.266-07:00Even if the first part of the 2nd Amendment is not...Even if the first part of the 2nd Amendment is not prefatory, and we were to assume that the right to bear arms was meant to be limited to the militia; the militia is comprised of every able bodied man between the ages of 17 - 45. The Dick Act of 1903 states that the "organized militia" was to be called the National Guard, and that there was also a separate "unorganized" or "reserve" militia which consisting of said males between the ages of 17-45. It also clarified the right of states to establish their own militias, or "State Defense Forces" that could not be called into federal service. It is up to the states to define the qualifications of their individual unorganized state militias. In the end, regardless of whether or not the first part of the 2nd Amendment defines a qualification, or if it simply describes a purpose; it does not change the fact that your average ordinary everyday citizen is automatically in the militia by US code, and therefore QUALIFIES them to bear arms even if such qualification is not required.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-1344102121789778492011-07-05T07:19:40.716-07:002011-07-05T07:19:40.716-07:00In the latter half of the 20th century there was c...In the latter half of the 20th century there was considerable debate on whether the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right.[95] The debate centered on whether the opening or prefatory clause “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State” declares the Amendment’s only purpose, or if it merely announces a purpose to introduce the main or operative clause “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.<br /><br />Another interpretation holds the Second Amendment contains an opening prefatory or amplifying clause followed by an operative clause. The opening phrase is meant as a non-exclusive example—one of many reasons for the amendment [19] This interpretation is consistent with the position that the Second Amendment protects a modified individual right.[96] In Heller, the Supreme Court endorsed this description of the Second Amendment.[97] Although the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such constructions were widely used elsewhere.[98]<br /><br />Under this interpretation, the opening phrase is considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause.[99] This was a grammar structure that was common during that era.[100] This grammatical description is considered by some to be consistent with the concept of the Second Amendment as protecting a collective right to firearms for members serving in a select militia.<br /><br />taken from:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionSteveThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497860023601521498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-57857641733449460372011-07-05T07:11:46.441-07:002011-07-05T07:11:46.441-07:00I would have to disagree... the phrase "well ...I would have to disagree... the phrase "well regulated militia" did not mean the same thing during the drafting of that document that it would mean today.<br /><br />James Madison's initial proposal:<br /><br />"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."<br /><br />Madison, Jefferson, Washington - all have many well known quotes from the period that specifically outline their views on the second amendment - and the rights of individuals to bear arms.SteveThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497860023601521498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-27463609735307522252010-05-27T12:09:06.848-07:002010-05-27T12:09:06.848-07:00Agree!! the 2nd amendment was to protect us from ...Agree!! the 2nd amendment was to protect us from tyrants among other reasons. I'm not even talking of Obama, but just any president (Nixon was close to declaring martial law).<br /><br />Great article and written for any person to read and understand.SummerRainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14597780354726169390noreply@blogger.com