The 2nd amendment is about giving the states an absolute right to have their own armed militias which today has been transformed into the National Guard.It also guarantees that the states have the right to have the same weapons as a federal army, a right in existence today and has always been, since the National Guard of every state does have most of the same weapons that the Federal army has. National Guard units have tanks, they have fighter jets. They have bombers.And it's why National Guard units have been fighting in Iraq since 2002. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the states to have them. It is also what allowed the states of the Confederacy to have the weapons to fight a Civil War.
If you think the amendment gives an individual the right to have those weapons try putting a tank in your backyard.And keep in mind the entire amendment wasn't written so that it could be diced and sliced with words ignored to suit someone's purpose. The amendment means what it says.
The next line refers to " the right of the people...".
For those who don't know there are two types of rights enumerated in the Constitution, states rights and individual rights. As any Constitutional scholar will tell you, when the Framers were referring to a state's right they used the term "the people:". When they were referring to an individual right, they used the word " person".The 5th amendment is a good example. It begins with the words, "No person shall..." and lays out guarantees, among them, double jeopardy and that no person in a criminal case shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Once you understand who the Framers are referring to when they say "the people", which is a collective for the individual states, and not referring to an individual right, it's time to deal with the most misused and misunderstood part of the 2nd amendment - the words "to keep and bear arms".
The rest of the article is of interest too, but I like that part about the difference between people and person.
What's your opinion?
Try reading the BOR and see what an idiotic distinction that is.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between "the people" and "person" is pretty important in this argument. But, the first four words of the Amendment say it all.
DeleteThe first four words only tell us why the amendment was seen as necessary. But as I asked below, if the people means states, what's that word doing in the First Amendment?
Delete"As any Constitutional scholar will tell you, when the Framers were referring to a state's right they used the term "the people:"."
ReplyDeleteAnd from the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
States or the people. A little redundant given what that moron had to say. LOL.
Ah, another one of Laci's fellow travelers that believe in the collective right thing. You can quote a guy from the Nixon administration all you want, but the most current decisions, Heller and McDonald say otherwise.
ReplyDeleteNot at all.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution starts "we the people", which if you take it to mean each and every US Citizen who was eligible to vote at the time, since pretty much only white landowners had that privilege under the Articles of Confederation, then the Old Pennsylvania State house would have been really crowded>
The reality was that "the people" who worked on drafting the Constitution were elected representatives who were actually working in secret since their brief was to update the Article of Confederation, not create an entirely new document.
Or to quote United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990): [The term] "the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution... refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
BTW, since I know it's taken that since the case says:"The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"" in it's dicta, that it is a Second Amendment case, here are the facts and issue:
Facts of the Case
Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez was a citizen and resident of Mexico. In cooperation with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Mexican police officers apprehended and transported him to the U.S. border, where he was arrested for various narcotics-related offenses. Following his arrest, a DEA agent sought authorization to search Verdugo-Urquidez's residences for evidence. The Director General of the Mexican Federal Judicial Police authorized the searches, but no search warrant from a U.S. magistrate was ever received. At trial, the district court granted Verdugo-Urquidez's motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that the search violated the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
Question
Does the Fourth Amendment apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property that is owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country?
Although, if we are to take a Fourth Amendment case as having any bearing upon the Second Amendment, it would be better to use Justice William O. Douglas’s dissent in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972) since Douglas was on the Court at the Time of US. v. Miller:
Laci - I am not a lawyer so maybe you can enlighten me. Do dissent opinions have the force of law behind them in what they state? For instance, if the majority opinion of the Supreme Court says the 2nd Amendment grants an individual right to own a gun and a dissent opinion in that case says that it doesn't, which opinion gets enforced?
ReplyDeleteDon't confuse Laci with facts.
DeleteSo when the First Amendment addresses the right of the people to assemble, does that mean states? What nonsense.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, did you note that this article is from 2009?