Otherwise, why is there all the talk about militias, standing armies, religious exemption, compelling military service and so on?
As LegalEagle pointed out the Madison Resolution, June 8, 1789.
Resolved, that the following amendments ought to be proposed by Congress to the legislatures of the states, to become, if ratified by three fourths thereof, part of the constitution of the United States... 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...For more of the debates where they talk a lot about this stuff, but rarely mention private arms see:
http://constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm
Virginia — SEVENTEENTH, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power. EIGHTEENTH, That no Soldier in time of peace ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war in such manner only as the laws direct. NINETEENTH, That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead... (Amendments proposed to the body of the Constitution).... NINTH, that no standing army or regular troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace, without the consent of two thirds of the members present in both houses. TENTH, That no soldier shall be inlisted for any longer term than four years, except in time of war, and then for no longer term than the continuance of the war. ELEVENTH, That each State respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining it's own Militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the Militia shall not be subject to Martial Law, except when in actual service in time of war, invasion, or rebellion; and when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject only to such fines, penalties and punishments as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own State.
New York — That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; that the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law, except in time of War Rebellion or Insurrection. That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the Civil Power. That in time of Peace no Soldier ought to be quartered in any House without the consent of the Owner, and in time of War only by the civil Magistrate in such manner as the Laws may direct...that the Militia of any State shall not be compelled to serve without the limits of the State for a longer term than six weeks, without the Consent of the Legislature thereof.ADDITIONAL ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT; September 8, 1789
That no standing army or regular troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace, without the consent of two thirds of the members present in both houses. That no soldier shall be enlisted for any longer term than four years, except in time of war, and then for no longer term than the continuance of the war. That each State respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except when in actual service in time or war, invasion or rebellion; and when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject only to such fines, penalties, and punishments as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own State.From DEBATE ON THE MILITIA AND RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR IN THE HOUSE (Senate debates were secret).
The Congressional Register, 17 August 1789
Mr. Gerry — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government; if we could suppose that in all cases the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now it must be evident, that under this provision, together with their other powers, congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as make a standing army necessary. Whenever government mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making, to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia, but they were always defeated by the influence of the crown.Well, it's evident to everybody except LegalEagle45
Mr. Gerry — Replied, that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they stood. He then proceeded, No attempts that they made, were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thralldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head; for this reason he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect, scrupulous of bearing arms.Militia duty? I thought this was all about private arms of citizens.
Where was any mention of private arms in those quotes? If you read the actual debates, where are the mentions of private arms?
Compulsion to Serve? Militia duty? what does that have to do with owning guns for non-militia purposes?
Were these people speed freaks just babbling nonsense?
Just wait:
On August 24, 1789, a House Resolution and Articles of Amendments were passed and sent to the Senate. The Amendment then read: "Article the Fifth. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."On August 17, a motion by Gerry to insert "trained to arms" at this point failed for want of a second.
On September 4, 1789, the Senate disapproved a motion to insert at the end, "that standing armies, in time of peace, being dangerous to Liberty, should be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil Power. That no standing army or regular troops shall be raised in time of peace, without the consent of two thirds of the Members present in both Houses, and that no soldier shall be inlisted for any longer term than the continuance of the war."
Oh here's something that mentions personal uses:
7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.But if this is about private ownership of firearms, why say "standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers".
And they also point out that people can be disarmed "for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individual"
All this just doesn't fit with the view of reality that LegalEagle45 wants me to buy into.
But Laci, why are you arguing from old texts? You and Dog Gone and Mikeb have told us that those are out of date. Dog Gone claims that modern rights come from consensus. If that's so, why not look to how people interpret the document today?
ReplyDeleteFinally, I am making you think. Good job! Please note that Madison's draft is an almost verbatim copy of the language that was proposed by Virginia.
ReplyDeleteMadison's proposal: "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."
Note the right is placed first and seperated by the remainder by a semicolon.
Now let us see where similar language is found in the Virginia proposal:
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State."
In a seperate provision, Virginia provided: "That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead."
It is clear that Madison combined these two proposals from Virginia with only some minor editing. However, this phrasing did not originate within the Virginia Ratifying Convention. Do you know where and when and who drafted the language which Virginia adopted almost verbatim? But I digress...
Since I have never asserted that the 2nd Amend isn't about protecting the militia, your argument is spurious. What we disagree about is the methodology employed.
Clearly what we have is an individual right. Thus we would not have this otherwise:
"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
Thus we have a demonstrable fear that the clause "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person" would be used as a ruse so as to prevent some people from bearing arms.
Make no mistake about it, this is a seperate clause which they are arguing about. They are not arguing about what is meant by the clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Other thing to note, the clause in question does not say " but no person religiously scrupulous of keeping and bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person." Obviously, keeping arms is different from bearing arms.
Now some of the debate you left out:
AUGUST 20, 1789
Mr. SCOTT objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He said, if this becomes part of the constitution, we can neither call upon such persons for services nor an equivalent; it is attended with still further difficulties, for you can never depend upon your militia. THIS WILL LEAD TO THE VIOLATION OF ANOTHER ARTICLE IN THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH SECURES TO THE PEOPLE THE RIGHT OF KEEPING ARMS, as in this case you must have recourse to a standing army." (Emphasis supplied).
Why would would a violation of the right to bear arms lead to a violation of the right to keep arms? And why would it mean that the only recourse is to have a standing army? Can you explain that?
Continued....
You must know armed citizens doesn't qualify as a standing army.
ReplyDeleteThat quote was targeted against personal army of which were popular during the founding of the country and for some time after like Roosevelt rough riders.
this thought was to keep militia/military form being used to take control as exampled by England and Greek/Rome history.
like a war between states.
we have just gotten out from under toe of England and didn't whant to be placed under
another form of Tyrant rule. Hence the protection given to us in the bill of rights.
citizens are loosely connected and in few cases
can be united for a cause like the revolution.
;Laci The Dog
"And they also point out that people can be disarmed "for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individual;
No one would argue with the need to keep firearms out of the hands of those who would misuse them, but your seem to keep calling for tighter gun-laws even the ones that have no effect. no matter how hard you make it for citizens to own firearms it wouldn't keep them out of the hand of criminals nor will it quell the want for violence.
Our energy would be better fighting sources of violence in our country then targeting the tools.
Wow, this comes as a really stupid comment--the issue is militias v. standing armies.
DeleteMilitia--force of non-professionals who are trained in the use of arms, it is a localised force which is called up primarily for defence, quelling disturbances, and other civic purposes.
Standing army--a professional force of full time soldiers, it is in existance even during peacetime--hence standing army.
No, the founders had no problem with prohibiting people from owning firearms if it would have led to high crime rates.
,Laci The Dog
DeleteIt really doesn't help your argument to call any one who thinks different then you stupid or a nut.
matter a fact it just make your argument weaker and is something your seem to rely when you argument is made null.
The argument of the whether founders believe in personal
right to arms has been accepted even by gun-control advocates.
which leads to your next augment.
"No, the founders had no problem with prohibiting people from owning firearms if it would have led to high crime rates."
of which I agree with to the point of keeping out of the hands of those who would mis-use them.
but not that they would have ban them from private ownership.
You cant blame objects for the crimes that would be ludicrous.
Nor can you say what the founders would do,
you can only draw a conclusion from what they left behind.
If your can't use fact instead of insults don't bother posting a Replie.
Continued...
ReplyDeleteLaci writes: "Militia duty? I thought this was all about private arms of citizens."
The militia is protected by virtue of insuring that the individual right to to keep and bear arms for private purposes is not infringed. When are you going to understand that? Your entire argument seems to consist of mumbeling "militia militia militia" without providing any substantive analysis.
My reading of the 2nd is quite similar to famed liberal constitutional scholar and author of the most widely used Con Law text in American Law Schools today, who 8 years prior to Heller wrote:
"[The Second Amendment's] central purpose is to arm "We the People" so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes--not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons--a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action." Laurence H. Tribe, 1 American Constitutional Law 902 n.221 [3d ed. 2000].
The "religiously scrupulous" clause was inserted primarily as protection for Quakers. Quakers were not merely opposed to military service, they were opposed to the use of any force against another. Yet they owned guns and engaged in subsistence hunting (side bar, Daniel Boone was raised in a Quaker family). They would never inflict harm intentionally against another person, even in self defense. Yet they have a right to keep arms.
So do you now wish to assert that the 2nd Amend protects an individual right to be a member of the well regulated militia, in lieu of your previous assertion that it required the Feds to properly arm the militia? I sure hope so, because then, as Ricky Ricardo told Lucy, you have a lot of splainin to do. LOL.... and I am not going to allow you to substitute mumbeling "militia, militia, militia" in lieu of substantive analysis of just EXACTLY HOW your version of the 2nd protects the well regulated militia from the dangers envisioned by the framers, so get your thinking cap on.
Then we can get back to keep arms.
Leagle birdie writes:The militia is protected by virtue of insuring that the individual right to to keep and bear arms for private purposes is not infringed.
DeleteUm, no. As Laci has so eloquently demonstrated, the 2nd Amendment language, including the right to bear arms, is entirely and exclusively relating to the militia, and after the milita was subsumed into the standing army, into that organization so far as it applied.
There IS NO OTHER right in the 2nd Amendment. Having 5 justices out of 9, in addition to the rulings of the overwhelming majority of SOCUTS Justices throughout our history creating settled law to that effect, and the other pertinent legal precedent, as well as the history supports that.
I have yet to see any of our advocates for natural law show me any instance where private lethal weapons were considered to be a fundamental right in the 18th or 19th century in moral philosophy. Someone might discuss aspects of self deense, but there was no consensus to that effect, not even a specific school of thought that affirmed it. So your claims of natural law are not only wrong, they are inaccurate.
And until you can find something that exists entirely SEPARATE from references to the militia in the Constitution, you don't really have a leg to stand on for your argument.
You haven't gotten past that threshold.
Btw - you mentioned submitting a brief to the SCOTUS in Heller. Was it accepted into the argument or was it one of the rejected ones?
Sorry, Legal birdie, but you have yet to make the case where Laci in fact needs to get past repeating militia.
So far, you haven't gotten past that threshold of WHY he has to justify any reference other than applying in some way to the militia and a broader defense than self-defense. He's made his case very well.
You have not.
Quoting from findlaw on the topic, a source I find very useful and well researched:
Delete"Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule."
I believe that like Dredd Scott, like the SCOTUS rulings reversing the decision on incarcerating Japanese Americans, this too will turn out to be a temporary decision, not one that will stand the test of time. It appears to be part of a set of rulings by several justices who appear to have at the very least a cloud hanging over both their competency and their integrity.
Hi dog gone.
Delete"Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule."
Absolutely right. Not disarm the militia, but disarm the people. The 2nd prevents the government from taking away the private weapons on the people, simple as that. Glad we agree.
dog gone wrote: "I believe that like Dredd Scott, like the SCOTUS rulings reversing the decision on incarcerating Japanese Americans, this too will turn out to be a temporary decision."
Dred Scott was never reversed by SCOTUS. The 14th amend was needed to reverse a very bad decision.
Korematsu has never been overruled by SCOTUS or amendment and is still good law, albeit limited to situations involving wartime emergency. See MISSOURI v. JENKINS, ___ U.S. ___ (1995).
Another one on my list is Slaughterhouse, which compelled the finding in Citizens United.... never overruled. Another one is Cruickshank... never overruled.
Finally, we have Plessy v Ferguson, took them almost 60 years to get rid of that nonsense in Brown v Board of Education.
I believe that Heller was properly decided and will not be reversed. I believe if you wish to negate the 2nd, a Constitutional Amendment is necessary.
When the Framers created the various documents, they were purposefully brief and their application was inherently national in scope. Specific items such as an Amendment were intentionally brief and not intended to be exhaustive.
ReplyDeleteFurther, the Framers carefully chose the subjects and objects in their sentences, such as "the people" or "Congress" ... and I see no ambiguity anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights.
Any average person who knows the historical meaning of "militia" comes to the same simple understanding when they read the 2nd Amendment. Our government shall not infringe on the right of all able bodied citizens to keep and bear arms. And that bolsters the security of a free state.
Now there are a few things inherent in the specific wording of the Amendment. The militia was composed of citizens, not criminals. So the Amendment does not protect the right of criminals to use firearms to commit crimes. Second, militias were all able bodied people. This excludes mentally ill people as well as people that are too young and too old at some point. Finally, the Amendment recognizes the simple fact that when citizens keep and bear arms in any manner, they contribute to the security of our free neighborhood, county, state, and country.
This last part is incredibly significant. The fact that something like 80 million U.S. citizens merely own firearms is a deterrent to foreign nations that would attempt to invade the U.S. mainland. And only one in ten such households would have to send an adult to amass an army of 8 million to repel any national invasion. Because most of the citizenry maintain their firearms and practice enough to be proficient, they would require little additional training before being ready to repel an invasion. On a more local note, even one armed citizen much less two or three stand ready to address a local attack ... whether a criminal who plans to mug someone, gangs looking to take advantage of natural disaster such as hurricane Katrina, or a "lone wolf" terrorist looking to cause more widespread damage.
Dog gone,
ReplyDeleteYour assertion that 18th or 19th century moral philosophy did not advocate "private lethal weapons" is unimportant because the philosophies didn't speak to how you defend yourself. And even if we artificially insert your aversion to firearms into the self defense argument, your argument over firearms is meaningless. I can defend myself with my fists, a stick, or a knife and all of those have been lethal many times. And statistics show that gunshot wounds during violent engagements are only lethal about 20% of the time. I do not recall what the statistics are on knives -- maybe 5% of the time?
So your whole argument boils down to some arbitrary assertion of how lethal an instrument is? When you agree that everyone has to put on a muzzle before entering a crowded theater or stadium, I'll agree to keep firearms locked in a safe and effectively useless at all times.
Crunchy, try to keep up. You and your side like to make bogus claims about natural right and natural law.
DeleteIt was the philosophers of that period who came up twith those premises. If they didn't assert it, you're on shaky ground to try to do so retroactively.
In point of fact, there has NEVER been any such presumed right prior to Heller, and I'd argue that Heller is an assertion of them that is tottering and poorly founded.
You keep asserting this was a right in the intent of the founding fathers. It was not, not ever. There is no solid support for something that broad, or non-specific to militias and armies.
To quote the opening paragraph from the excellent legal site, FindLaw.com on the existence of any such established personal weapon right prior to Heller:
U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment
Second Amendment - Bearing Arms
Amendment Text | Annotations
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.
Annotations
Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3
That backs up Laci pretty thoroughly.
As to putting on a muzzle, that would be a reasonable comparison if and only if you can demonstrate a problem with people biting others in crowded stadiums on a basis that comparably affects tens of thousands of people a year, including murder suicides by biting (I'd love to see you hou come up with a person committing suicide by biting himself).
Your side loves to argue false statements as facts, you like to make false and illogical conflations of unlike things as if they were alike.
It is why I assert repeatedly here that you are incapable of good sound critical thinking, valid and legitimate argumentation, or anything resembling intellectual honesty.
Lethality is pertinent if you accept the premise that people have the right to be safe, not the right to kill other people if they think they aren't safe, ormight not be safe, or are just to damned lazy to be safe themselves.
You would have to demonstrate in your final paragraph that not being muzzled violated other people's rights in anything like the way that guns violate others rights every day in many and varied ways, which are inherently and inextricably connected to lethality.
You haven't done that.
Your Findlaw quotation shows that the matter wasn't settled before Heller and McDonald. It names the two common views--individual right or state right. McDonald incorporated the Second Amendment, so now, it is a restraint on states and local governments.
DeleteGeeze Greg, it is shocking that you are allowed to teach with such poor comprehension.
DeleteYou have asserted that there was some clear 'natural right' or natural law that was understood and intended by the founding fathers and others.
CLEARLY, as shown by the Finlaw quote, there has never been, prior to Heller, ANY such established right, and any right UNDER Heller only pertains to a very limited right in your house, not any kind of public carry, AND supports rigorous restrictions and regulation. Settled law did NOT support Heller, and I would put to you what I already have - an overwhelming majority of SCOTUS justices, including those who were far more competent and arguably more honest, ruled quite contrary to Heller.
Simply naming that there had been some very limited views means NOTHING, absent legal findings that give them status. There was NO RECOGNIZED RIGHT OF ANY KIND TO PERSONAL WEAPONS OUTSIDE OF A MILITIA prior to Heller. Someone wanting there to be such a right, doesn't make it a right.
Given the flaws in the Heller decision, the disconnect from the other justices on the bench at the time of the Heller ruling, AND the preponderance of settled law, Heller is weak and doesn't do what you assert it does, and is likely to be temporary at best.
Dog gone,
DeleteThe point of a muzzle is that people could yell "fire!" in a crowded theater or stadium and cause a stampede that would kill dozens if not hundreds of people. The potential for mass carnage is enormous. (I am honestly surprised that terrorists are not doing this frequently.) So the only way to guarantee that no one ever yells "fire" is to force everyone to give up their right to talk (with a muzzle) when they are in public situations that could cause mass casualties.
As for your statement about thousands of people dying at the hands of armed citizens, you are flat wrong. Armed citizens are responsible annually for a few hundred unintentional discharges. And then you have about 1 concealed carry licensee per state per year who has no previous criminal record and murders someone. So you think it is imperative that we disarm citizens to try and eliminate a few hundred firearm deaths per year?
As for the 1000 or so citizens who die annually as a result of criminals murdering them with firearms, no one can demonstrate if your idea of gun control will reduce that number. Criminals will still obtain guns and/or use other weapons to murder people.
The best that you can possibly claim is that your version of gun control would save less than 2000 citizens' lives annually ... and I believe a more realistic number is less than 1000. So that's it. Your idea of gun control would leave all citizens defenseless to try and save the lives of less than 1000 citizens annually. I don't think that is a wise trade-off.
The "thousands" to which you refer are suicides or criminals murdering other criminals during criminal activity. While those actions are regrettable, they are not sufficient reason to limit the rights of citizens who have no criminal record or mental illness.
Dog gone,
DeleteYour "lethal weapon" argument is meaningless. All weapons can and have been applied lethally. Your arbitrary and unilateral determination of what constitutes a "lethal weapon" is irrelevant. What are the engineering units for measuring a weapon's lethality? What level of "lethality" requires that a weapon be unavailable to citizens?
Dog gone,
DeleteAnd you arbitrarily define the members of the militia and their activities. Armed citizens stand ready and willing to defend themselves and the state and indeed have defended themselves and the state: how does that fail to fall under the scope of the militia?
OK, let's go with why use these archaic texts? because the purpose of the Second Amendment is archaic.
ReplyDeleteDespite what legaleagle would like us to believe, the Second Amendment relates to the institution of the militia.
And he has yet to refute that with anything which doesn't back up that statement.
In no way does the Second Amendment allow for "We the People" (which is amusing that LegalEagle would use that phrase since the debates regarding the Constitution were held in secret).
There were two basic reasons for deciding that militiamen maintain their own arms under the Militia Act of 1792, rather than the government providing all the arms. One was the fear that the government could give arms to some and deny them to others. The other was simply the cost of arming so many militiamen.
However, as time went on, fear of the former decreased, and willingness to bear at least a part of the burden of arming increased. A number of people in Congress during the period 1789-1807 argued that the federal government should bear the cost of weapons, rather than individuals. The main reason for this was socioeconomic--poor people were generally the ones who had to serve in the militia to begin with, and it seemed harsh to also make them buy weapons.
The 1792 law requiring that militiamen arm themselves really upset a lot of poor people, who had to buy expensive military weapons, which were easy for the rich to afford. What many of them wanted was something like a property tax, which would then be used to buy guns for distribution. That way, the rich would be making a contribution proportionate to the contribution of the poor, towards the defense of the country.
Ultimately, people did not want to take on the obligation of militia service which is necessary for the Second Amendment leading to the quote I posted by Joseph Story from his Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890:
And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
So, there is a good reason I keep talking "militia, militia, militia" because the as story points out, it is the institution of the militia which is at the root of this right.
Not private arms.
I don't give a shit as to which side of the political spectrum you can find intellectually dishonest people who spout the type of bullshit you wish to hear, LegalEagle.
DeleteI have read the primary source material which points to the fact that the Second Amendment was related to the Institution of the Militia with little consideration of private arms.
Most reputable historians agree that the meaning of the Second Amendment was that it specifically guarantees the the right of states to ensure the arming of their militias in the face of fears that the federal government might effectively deny to arms to a state controlled militia. However, those fears never came true.
The Second Amendment has been largely irrelevant to the history of the militia since 1792.
It is the fact that it is a text which is easily misinterpreted by those ignorant of history which is why it has been hijacked from its original intent to something which was never mentioned in the debates:
Gun rights.
That term is NEVER mentioned. The topics of militias, standing armies, religious exemption, compelling military service and so on are, but the topic of personal arms is conspicuously absent in the literature of the time.
It is eclipsed to darkness by the concern of standing army v militia.
Despite what LegalEagle would wish.
I refuse to give any assent to lies or liars.
And I refuse to encourage the ignorance which has allowed for the Second Amendment to be bastardised by people who couldn't give a rat's arse about the constitution.
You can believe what you will, legalEagle, it is a lie and I will not accept your incorrect explanations.
I should further add, it seems that it is beginning to soak in to LegaleEagle that he is losing the war of quotes.
DeleteThe historical sources back up my version of reality.
With very little to back up that there was any interest in non-militia purposes for the Second Amendment.
Hi dog gone.
ReplyDeleteI have always treated you with respect, even if we disagree. Same thing with Mikeb. I do not provide Laci with the same level of respect because he initiated insulting behavior to which I responded in kind. I did not initiate such. Previous to the above post you have never insulted me, Mikeb has never insulted me, thus I have never previously insulted either of you. If you wish me to treat you with the respect to which you deserve, then you should treat me with respect. I refer specifically to your terminology "Leagle birdie".
dog gone wrote: "Um, no."
Um, yes.
dog gone wrote: "Laci has so eloquently demonstrated"
Laci has demonstrated that the 2nd amendment’s, central purpose is to protect the militia. With this I agree. He has not only failed, but he has not realistically tried to explain what is actually protected by the 2nd. He refuses to explain how his version protects the militia from the evils envisioned by the framers. Conversely I have expressly explained how my version works and how it protects the militia. I have further explained the duality of the right-duty aspect of the militia and the obligation-right to arms, by tracing them through history starting with the mid 800's. The right to arms acts as an inducement to have arms. The arms in the hands of the people protected by said right creates an unassailable armory from which the militia can always turn in need..
dog gone wrote: "There IS NO OTHER right in the 2nd Amendment."
Your turn then, just EXACTLY what would be a violation of your version of the 2nd and how does that protect the well regulated militia against the concerns expressed by the framers? Can you answer that question? Lacy can not or will not.
dog gone wrote: "I have yet to see any of our advocates for natural law show me any instance where private lethal weapons were considered to be a fundamental right in the 18th or 19th"
It was considered an auxiliary or subordinate right to the underlying unalienable natural right of self defense. The 5th auxiliary right to be specific. An auxiliary right is one which enhances, protects and preserves an underling unalienable natural right and is thus deemed "fundamental" even though termed "auxiliary". The fourth auxiliary right is to petition government and assemble for redress of grievances. The third is access to the courts for redress of grievances. The second is due process and just compensation. The first is the representative nature of parliament to pass laws. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals.
LEgalEagle, I am curious at to which law school you could go to that would allow you to graduate since you fail to comprehend two basics:
Delete1) back up your arguments with facts.
2) the ability to understand the English language.
Once again, you comment demonstrates that you
a) didn't read what I have written
b) failed to comprehend what was written
Given how quickly your response was posted, I would say that you didn'tbother reading my material.
I can understand that since I have provided quite a bit of resource material and documentation which answers your questions.
I know that you feel I am being insulting, but I do have to put things in terms which are very simplistic to try to make sure you understand them:
Story points out that it is more than just arms, but it is discipline and organisation which is fundamental to the Second Amendment right.
Mere arms in the hands of the untrained are useless against a well trained foe --as the people of Homs and Halabja will confirm.
An AK-47 is little use against a tank, a fighter jet, a bomber, heavy artillery, and other modern military equipment.
This is why the historic literature keeps mentioning the people "trained in arms", for mere arms without training are useless.
While you may feel that I am being insulting to you, LegalEagle, I must reiterate that you have failed to comprehend even the basics of the debate surrounding the second amendment
There is a reason the term used is "arms", not guns since the militia covered infantry as well as artillery and cavalry (cavalry artillery, and infantry can also be termed as "arms").
Thus, the Second Amendment covers far more than just guns, but it relates to arms and being trained in arms as part of a militia.
I should also add that your reliance upon Blackstone and his gloss of the English Bill of Rights is not germane to the US Constitution for obvious reasons.
DeleteI find it hypocritical, legalEagle, that you can say that his method of statutory interpretation is not valid, yet you cite to his glosses of the British Bill of Rights as being germane to the conversation.
Again, this demonstrates that you lack understanding of the basics of this debate.
LeggalEagle, I have answered your question of "EXACTLY what would be a violation of your version of the 2nd".
DeleteIt requires you to do some reading.
But the basics would be that the Federal Government in some way failed to arm the militia or take on any of its Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 duties.
I more appropriate violation would be the fact that there is now a federal standing army which has been sent to fight an illegal war.
But, as I pointed out, the Second Amendment has been irrelevant since 1792.
And as Story pointed out, the fact that you demand this right without any system of militia discipline and armed without some organization shows that this Amendment is no longer applicable to modern life.
The fact that you wish to separate the clauses demonstrates that you are like the mother of the child who wants to split the baby when Solomon gives his judgement shows that you have no regard or like for the Constitution.
Laci the Dog wrote:"LEgalEagle, I am curious at to which law school"
DeleteNo matter how many times you beg, I am not going to tell you. If you wish, you may believe that I did not graduate from High School.
Laci the Dog wrote: "1) back up your arguments with facts."
I have, just because you say I have not does not mean it is true. Your analysis consists totally of mumbeling "militia, militia, militia"
Laci wrote: "2) the ability to understand the English language."
I do, just because you say I don't does not mean it is true. Your analysis consists totally of mumbeling "militia, militia, militia" with no analysis
Laci wrote: "Once again, you comment demonstrates that you a) didn't read what I have written
b) failed to comprehend what was written"
Just because you are not intelligent to comprehend my
analysis, does not mean that my analysis is incorrect. So what about bear arms? Is there a right to serve in the militia? Why do you refuse to answer my questions? Most importantly...
So what would be a violation of the your version of the 2nd, and why have you failed to address that except for claiming that Congress must adequately arm the militia... who enforces that and how the heck do they enforce it? A right without a remedy is not a right, Laci.
Answer it.
Lacy the Dog wrote: "I should also add that your reliance upon Blackstone and his gloss of the English Bill of Rights is not germane to the US Constitution for obvious reasons."
DeleteThat is laughable. Some other provisions of the English Bill of Rights:
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Sound familar?
Name one serious scholar that says the English Bill of Rights did not have an important influence on our Constitution. You really want to ignore the notes of Madison to his speech to Congress?
You are grasping at straws.
Laci the Dog wrote: "Again, this demonstrates that you lack understanding of the basics of this debate."
Again, this demonstrates that you are an amatuer.
Laci wrote: "Story points out that it is more than just arms, but it is discipline and organisation which is fundamental to the Second Amendment right."
DeleteLets take a look at all of the great commentators on the Constitution, including Story. This will be a complete copy of their commentary with no additions, no deletions...
Tucker's Blackstone (1803) on the 2nd You will note St. George Tucker is actually mentioned in the debates you linked):
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty."
Note the specific reference to the English Bill of Rights. Next Rawle...
Continued..
DeleteView of the Constitution, William Rawle (1829) —
"In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
In most of the countries of Europe, this right does not seem to be denied, although it is allowed more, or less sparingly, according to circumstances. In England, a country which boasts so much of its freedom, the right was secured to Protestant subjects only, on the revolution of 1688; and it is cautiously described to be that of bearing arms for their defence, "suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law." 6 An arbitrary code for the preservation of game in that country has long disgraced them. A very small proportion of the people being permitted to kill it, though for their own subsistence; a gun or other instrument, used for that purpose by an unqualified person, may be seized and forfeited. Blackstone, in whom we regret that we cannot always trace the expanded principles of rational liberty, observes however, on this subject, that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the people, is oftener meant than avowed, by the makers of forest and game laws.
This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.
An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single, individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonments."
Note the specific reference to the English Bill of Rights.
Next is Story...
Leagle birdie, don't get too bent out of shape at the nickname. It is similar to me calling Cap'n Crunch Crunchie, or someone eles here calling me Doggie, or DeeGee.
DeleteI not only read what is written here, I sometimes have the pleasure -- and it IS a pleasure - of expanding the discussions here with Laci by phone. I find him both passionate and eloquent, and well versed and well-researched. He has an excellent legal mind, and has been competitive where the competition is rigorous. He has been involved in the practice of law on both sides of the Atlantic and in multiple jurisdictions, and has more than one degree in the law.
In contrast, whatever your reasons, you won't share with us similar information to what Laci has provided here - what schools you attended, or regarding Heller, what amicus brief you wrote or contributed to; absent the ability to compare legal backgrounds, or whether you wrote one of the serious or one of the silly Heller amicus briefs, I have to agree with Laci that your legal claims have struck me as weak and not very compelling.
I would disagree with you about the biblical reference; YOU seem to be the one wanting to separate the clauses. We are arguing that you cannot do so, that all of the sentence pertains to the first part of it which is clearly the foundation for the rest of the thought in the sentence, the militia, and CANNOT be separated from it.
Ok finally Story
DeleteCommentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Joseph Story (1833):
________________________________________
§ 1889. The next amendment is: "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."
§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.2 And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.1
_______________________________
2 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 300; Rawle on Const. ch. 10, p. 125; 2 Lloyd's Debates, 219, 220.
1 It would be well for Americans to reflect upon the passage in Tacitus, (Hist. IV. ch. 74): "Nam neque quies sine armis, neque arma,sine stipendiis, neque stipendia sine tributis, haberi queunt." Is there any escape from a large standing army, but in a well disciplined militia? There is much wholesome instruction on this subject in 1 Black. Comm. ch. 13, p. 408 to 417.
2 5 Cobbett's Parl. Hist. p. 110; 1 Black. Comm. 143, 144.
3 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 300.
_________________________________________-
Please note this passage from Story:
THE RIGHT OF THE CITIZENS TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS HAS JUSTLY BEEN CONSIDERED, AS THE PALLADIUM OF THE LIBERTIES
He then cites both Tucker and Rawle. Not members of the militia, but citizens.
What you do not understand and what you refuse to understand is the relationship between an individual right to arms for private purposes and the maintenance of a well regulated militia. It is not one or the other, it is BOTH, they go hand in hand.
I have made a post about the English Bill of Rights.
DeleteMaybe you should familiarise yourself better before you pretend to argue it.
I would also suggest that you not confuse the doctrine of self-defence with national defence. At common law, deadly force was discourages.
In fact, its use could render one the aggressor and lead to legal prosecution.
The problem is, LegalEagle, you are using a shotgun argument.
You arguments are like tossing spaghetti on hoping that something might stick, but nothing does since you are obviously unclear on this topic.
If you know anything about US Jurisprudence, then you know full well that Marbury says "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect"
You are saying that the most iomportant cluase is "is mere surplusage, is entirely without meaning, if such is to be the construction."
You are violating the rules of US Constitutional interpretation as set forth by Marbury in your proposed construction,
I should add that Marbury's rule of statutory construction reinforces my position that the proeme is indeed important.
DeleteIf it provides the purpose for which the Second Amendment was adopted, then it it highly important to its interpretation.
You would render the "proeme" mere surplusage" by making the presumption that it has no effect.
That violates Marbury.
And if Marbury is no longer valid, then Heller is no longer valid since Marbury is where the concept of Judicial review comes from.
Judicial review which invalidates popularly passed laws by local citizenry, especially those taxed without representation, were grievances in the Declaration of Independence.
So much for the Second Amendment being the tool of Liberty--you have led it to be the exact tyranny complained of by the colonials.
Laci wrote: "If it provides the purpose for which the Second Amendment was adopted, then it it highly important to its interpretation."
DeleteYep, never said anything different. In fact, you dodged this before:
"Its true office is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, “to provide for the common defense.” No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?"1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: 1833), 462
It serves as an aid to interpretation, as it neither creates or limits the right, but serves to explain it. When 2 different proposed interpretations are proffered then you test it against the preamble. Which one better serves the purpose delineated?
SO TELL US EXACTLY WHAT YOUR VERSION OF THE SECOND PROTECTS AND HOW IT PROTECTS IT??? WHAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION???
Can't you answer a simple question?
Then we can see if your version actually ptotects anything.
"I have to agree with Laci that your legal claims have struck me as weak and not very compelling."
DeleteDG - considering the Supreme Court sided with his side of the arguement in Heller, I am inclined to believe LegalEagle's opinions on the 2nd Amendment
Laci wrote: "It requires you to do some reading."
DeleteLOL, can't do it, huh?
Laci wrote: "But the basics would be that the Federal Government in some way failed to arm the militia"
Ok who sues... all 9 members of the SCOTUS found an individual right:
"The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e.,
one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred." DC v Heller Breyer J., dissenting pg 3, slip opinion
In 2003, the National Guard (the militia as you admit) was sent to Iraq with outdated Body Armor (a category of arms subject to the 2nd,). In fact, they were merely provided with Vietnam era flak jackets, while the regular army was provided with modern ballistic armor which stopped rifle bullets. Because of delays in procurement, these NG members had to do without for about 6 months.
Was this a violation of the 2nd? If not, why not? If so, who can sue? Has anyone sued? Has there ever been such a lawsuit in the history of the world?
My version in action. The friends parents and relatives of the NG members went out and bought modern body armor for their sons and loved ones, they began ariving in weeks. My version is real and actually happened, your version is illusory.
Laci wrote: "I more appropriate violation would be the fact that there is now a federal standing army which has been sent to fight an illegal war."
DeleteHow exactly is that a violation of the 2nd? Are you serious? It may be a violation of some other law, international, constitutional or otherwise, but it sure doesn't violate the 2nd.
Laci wrote: "But, as I pointed out, the Second Amendment has been irrelevant since 1792."
Ah, since the year after it was ratified. We already destroyed that argument remember? Your option is to amend the constitution, not ignore it.
Laci wrote: "And as Story pointed out, the fact that you demand this right without any system of militia discipline"
Irrelevant. That is up to the government, if they choose to impose it they can. The right protected remains protected. To make a right contingent upon government action is nonsense and illusory.
Laci wrote: "An AK-47 is little use against a tank, a fighter jet, a bomber, heavy artillery, and other modern military equipment."
Irrelevant. Your option is to amend the constitution, not ignore it.
You are n9ot doing to well Lacy.
In the words of Dennis Hennigan:
DeleteWhen the task is persuasion, instead of intimidation, the gun lobby has been firing blanks.
Right, Dennis Henigan is so very persuasive. How much did he accomplish in his attempt at being the Brady Bunch president?
DeleteLacy wrote: "In the words of Dennis Hennigan:"
DeleteThe esteemed scholar, aka paid gunslinger fro Brady and before that Hangun Control Inc, who on the steps of SCOTUS following Oral Argument in Heller quoted the 2nd Amen as follows:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
They alwas forget the words, "the people".
Laci... I love the way you cherry pick. You can take a small part out of Story and ignore his invocation about the right of citizens to keep an bear arms, then uses the words of Tucker. You ignore Tucker an Rawle. Then you leave out Madisons notes. You cherry pick bear out of Amyette but do not address keep in Amyette. Same thing with the debates in the 1st Congres. Bear but no keep.
DeleteI on the other hand include everything and explain everything.... and you mumble "militia, militia, militia" and say the 2nd makes it a duty for the feds to arm the militia.. LOL, got any case law which says that? Got any scholarly opinion from any publiched author of the era?
Story Rawle and Tucker all agree with me. The purpose is to protect the militia. That purpose is achieved by virtue of protecting a preexisting individual right to arms for private purposes.
Amatuer.
Marburys Rules of Construction:
ReplyDelete"1) "The rights enumerated in this Bill of Rights shall not be construed to limit other rights of the people not therein expressed. For (not to mention the liberal and beneficial manner of Construction which we have a right to) the plain, natural, and obvious meaning of the charter is, to grant and confirm certain Rights, Privileges, and Immunities to all his Majesty's subjects who then did or ever should inhabit that tract of country in America usually called Virginia, according to the Descriptions and Boundaries of the original Charters, not before otherwise appropriated or disposed of by His Majesty's Ancestors." - George Mason, July 1773, Extracts From The Virginia Charters, With Some Remarks On Them Made In The Year 1773"
Thus the rights are construed liberally...
Laci wrote: "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect"
Yep, and you seem to believe the 2nd is without effect, because you can not tell us what the 2nd protects. You say it is obsolete and "irrelevant since 1792", which directly contradicts this presumption.
You are not too good at this Lacy...
Laci wrote: "I have made a post about the English Bill of Rights."
ReplyDeleteYep, too bad Tucker, Rawle and Story disagree with you, specifically in regards to the 2nd and generally with regards to other rights and provisions of the Bill of Rights.... as I have conclusively established by direct and full citations of their work. The English Bill of Rights is the Alpha, but it is not the Omega and serves as a source of many of our rights.
Laci wrote: "There is a reason the term used is "arms", not guns since the militia covered infantry as well as artillery and cavalry (cavalry artillery, and infantry can also be termed as "arms")."
Arms as used in the 2nd is defined in Sir Edward Coke's Institutes, Commentaries on Littleton, 161b, 162a. In modern english, it refers to anything a man takes into his hands or wears to strike out or defend against another. See also State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. (2 Pike) 18 (1842). It includes defensive armament as well as offensive weapons. It encompasses single man portable and use weapons appropriate for man to man combat. Area weapons are not included.
For those of weak mind, such as yourself, anything that goes bang is an arm. Anything that goes boom is not an arm. Things that go rat a tat tat, are also area weapons.
Laci wrote: "However, as time went on, fear of the former decreased, and willingness to bear at least a part of the burden of arming increased. A number of people in Congress during the period 1789-1807 argued that the federal government should bear the cost of weapons, rather than individuals."
Incorrect. There were always shortages due to some being unable to afford arms, this is why many colonial and stae militia laws required everyone to own arms, rather than those merely enrolled in the militia. The statutes provided that every head of household, including women head of household would be required to have arms.
In response to this shortfall, Congress authorized the expenditure of the sum of $200,000 annually to buy arms for those too poor to have their own. The biggest debate was over whether the arms provided to the poor milita members should be given to said militia members as a gift of a grateful nation following completion of service.
Laci wrote: "In no way does the Second Amendment allow for "We the People" (which is amusing that LegalEagle would use that phrase since the debates regarding the Constitution were held in secret)."
ReplyDelete1st, it was not me but famed Constitutional Scholar, liberal icon and Harvard Con Law Prof who used that term.
2nd. The debates on the 2nd were held in secret? You quoted some above... Some secret. Perhaps you are referring to the Constitutional Convention, where there was no 2nd Amend at all in the document? Those were held in secret but notes were published on the proceedings many years thereafter. Madison's notes are considered the best, but there are others.
Laci wrote: "I don't give a shit as to which side of the political spectrum you can find intellectually dishonest people who spout the type of bullshit you wish to hear"
LOL, Tribe has never been described as intellectually dishonest.... except for persons who do not have a clue who he is as you obviously do not. Do some research on him, please, you are merely demonstrating your profound ignorance on matters of Constitutional Law.
In fact, Laci, the individual rights thesis I and Tribe espouse, was the dominant one for the first 150 years of the 2nd Amend. It is only with the rise of modern gun control movements that the original meaning was forgotten, and sometimes ignored. The resurgance of the individual rights thesis is a result of the left, not the right. The Grandaddy of the movement is Don Kates, an elderly gentleman who is now almost blind, but still quite active. He is quite liberal in philosophy and is a retired professor of constitutional at Stanford. He worked in the Civil Rights movement with William Kunstler... Following Kates was Sanford Levinson, another liberal, whos law review article "The Embarrasing Second Amendment" set of a firestorm of first criticism and then agreement, until today this thesis is the one most adhered to in academic circles.... In fact it is referred to as the "Standard Model". It got so bad, that the Joyce Foundation had to buy not one, but two issues of prominent law journals and solicite opposing views to the Standard Model at rates previously unheard. Proponents of the Standard Model were specifically excluded by the coordinator thereof, Saul Cornell. The reason being was that in Cornells words, "the Standard Model is so predominate in other publications, that to give balance we must exclude them."
You are obviously an amatuer.
Hi, guys:
ReplyDeleteI've been at Wal-Mart for the last week and a half ( I got stuck in the sporting goods department when a couple of "beige trash"* mofos decided to have a hissy fit when they found out that they couldn't buy rifles and pistolas here. But I ate a lotta Cheetos and drank about six cases of MD and I'm rethinkin' the whole gunzthang. Oh, before I forget; Greg Camp, when people who are fullashit agree with you, it does not make you less full of shit.
* Like white trash, except not albino.