The right of the law abiding people to own those weapons used by ladies and gentlemen which can be operated by one person shall not be questioned.
I should add that St. George Tucker, Joseph Story, and other contemporary commenters discuss the differences between the English Bill of Rights and Second Amendment:
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 300
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.William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 125--26 1829 (2d ed.)
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." 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.Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:
§ 1891. A similar provision in favour of protestants (for to them it is confined) is to be found in the bill of rights of 1688, it being declared, "that the subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law." But under various pretences the effect of this provision has been greatly narrowed; and it is at present in England more nominal than real, as a defensive privilege.
Actually, I'd like to have these as the first two amendments:
ReplyDelete1st:
Persons within the jurisdiction of the United States have the right to create and distribute their own expressive works, to practice their beliefs, to assemble in groups, and to petition their governments in any manner that does not directly impede the ability of others to do the same.
2nd:
Citizens have the right to own and bear small arms and the right to use them for legitimate purposes, including self defense.
The tone of the commentators that you quoted is in support of my side.
ReplyDeleteYou realize of course that you omitted the first part of Tucker's paragraph which says:
ReplyDelete"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense 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."
And more Tucker:
"In America we may reasonably hope
that the people will never cease
to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms
as the surest pledge of their liberty."
--St. George Tucker
"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people."
ReplyDeleteSaint George Tucker (1752-1827) Lawyer, Judge and Professor On Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), Volume 1, Appendix, Note D
I'm curious pooch, wherever you live does, 'to keep' as in to keep and bear arms mean something other than "to retain possession of"?
I'm going to shock Laci and acknowledge that "keep" is an ambiguous word. It doesn't exactly mean own, alas.
ReplyDeleteThe 2nd Amendment is as meaningless in today's society as the 3rd.
ReplyDeleteneedless to say, the point of this post went over greg's head.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, The OED gives 41 different meanings for the word "keep".
I neglected the First part of St. George Tucker since he is referring to the right under the English Bill of Rights.
The problem is that you are confusing two different types of self-defence: National defence and personal defence.
Blackstone and the other authorities cover personal self-defence in a different section of the book.
Of course, it's easy to confuse people like anonymous who get their information from other people.
BAAAAA! BAAAA!
Of course, I have to agree with Mikeb, the 2nd Amendment is as meaningless in today's society as the 3rd.
Unless you are demanding your right to belong to an organised militia unit, you have no Second Amendment right.
I should add that Anonymous continues his habit of posting unattributed quotes which he doesn't understand.
ReplyDeleteI seriously doubt that Anonymous has read Tucker, let alone Blackstone.
But, he fancies he's rather smart since he parrots people he thinks are smart.
Kind of like Greg.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteIf it's needless to say, then don't say it. Your point may be incomprehensible, but the point of the commentators that you quoted is clear: The English have had their right to arms taken away from them, despite the supposed protection of their Bill of Rights. The tone of the commentators appears to be in support of the American approach, although there isn't enough context to determine that for sure.
Greg, I have to point out that you missed my point.
ReplyDeleteIt's not incomprehensible as much as you are a fucking idiot, Greg.
Live with it.
Should I go back to trying to hammer your stupidity into your ignorant, thick skull, Greg?
I should also add, Greg, that you have developed quite a reputation for being a clueless cretin.
ReplyDeleteIs that news to you, or have you figured it out by now?
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteQuite a reputation, eh? The opinions of three persons about me is hardly a large or general view. Perhaps you'd like to give your analysis of the quotations that you offered? You just put them up for our reading without comment.
"The English have had their right to arms taken away from them, despite the supposed protection of their Bill of Rights.".
ReplyDeleteAnd you, Greg Camp, can undoubtedly furnish that statute. You've made a blanket statement which is, oh, what should we call it? Oh, yeah, it's another FUCKING LIE.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteTry getting a handgun permit--not to carry, just to own--in Great Britain. See the Firearms Act of 1997. Handguns are effectively banned, and even Olympic sport handgun shooters have had to train outside of the U.K.
"Try getting a handgun permit--not to carry, just to own--in Great Britain. See the Firearms Act of 1997. Handguns are effectively banned, and even Olympic sport handgun shooters have had to train outside of the U.K.
ReplyDeleteDecember 16, 2011 6:46 PM"
Which makes this FUCKING LIE:
"The English have had their right to arms taken away from them, despite the supposed protection of their Bill of Rights.".
no less of a fucking lie than it was before.
You and your asshole gunzloonz buddies like to say things that are sensationalist and untrue because you know that the other credulous boobz you hang out with won't care if they're lies as long as they sound good.
So, yeah, sorry; you're still a FUCKING LIAR.
Uh, Democommie, you didn't address the point that I raised. I gave you an example of how the British people have had their right to arms taken away. Here's another example: To own any kind of firearm, one must apply to the local chief of police and show a good reason for having it. In most states in America, we don't have to do that.
ReplyDeleteThis raises the following question: How many examples do I have to provide you before you'll retract your claim that I'm lying here? Is it even possible for me to convince you that I'm expressing a legitimate opinion?
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteFirst you tell a FUCKING LIE, to wit:
"The English have had their right to arms taken away from them, despite the supposed protection of their Bill of Rights."
Which IS untrue.
Then, when you are caught in making that FUCKING LIE you pretend that what you meant to say was something along the lines of:
"The English have had some of their rights to arms limited under law, despite (in my opinion) their forever and ever and unlimited right to teh gunz".
The problem is that you did not say something like that fake quote I just typed.
You want people to believe that you're honest and a good teacher. You're either a lying sack of shit or a moron. In view of your hamfisted attempts at commenting, I'd guess that there's considerable co-morbidity.