Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2002 20:35:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1197 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > The Federal Government is within its power, as enumerated by the
> > Constitution, to legislate a full ban on private ownership of arms. If you
> > object to the Federal Government's exercise of that power, then your beef is
> > with the Constitution, and not with the Fed.
>
> Dave, your post is too full of errors to take on as a whole so I picked just
> this one spot. I think it is also an erroneous statement. I could
> certainly mount arguments that would show that the second amendment is
> indeed a protection to keep and bear arms. I could also show that
> amendments 9 and 10 likewise protect well recognized rights not otherwise
> enumerated in the constitution. If the federal govt. takes away my ability
> to keep and bear arms, my beef will be with them and not some moldy old
> document.
Then it's odd that the NRA, the most vociferous and organized proponents
of so-called gun rights, has never brought a case successfully before the
Supreme Court, despite numerous opportunities to try. You are of course
correct regarding the enumerated powers, and I'm guilty of having taken a
textual shortcut. Within the bounds of the Constitution, the Federal
Government is empowered to restrict rights in a number of ways; taxation is,
thanks to the 16th amendment, Constitutional by definition.
> Reality check: we have the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S., and we
> have since day one. If you want to argue for greater controls on arms, or
> even a complete ban -- at least recognize that your starting point is within
> a nation that has made the keeping and bearing of arms an ethic deeply
> connected to its own origins and concepts of freedom.
Really? Then why doesn't the Constitution say "The right of the citizen
to bear arms shall not be infringed?" Wouldn't that be a much better
enumeration of the amendment than an ephemeral "we infer that the founding
fathers meant such-and-such" sort of a claim?
> I happen to think that it's laughable that the second amendment is not well
> understood to protect the individual's right right to keep and bear arms.
> Talk about disinformation...
Spell out for me how the 2nd Amendment guarantees any individual the right
to bear anything. I'm not asking for an exhaustive exploration of all my
arguments, nor for a comprensive discussion of every court case dealing with
so-called gun rights.
Here's the text as I read it:
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.
An individual is not a militia, and a well regulated militia, in the modern
interpretation, is The National Guard. The militia, in its 2nd Amendment
incarnation, is in fact a mechanism for *PREVENTING* uprisings against the
government, rather than a mechanism for rising up against the Government.
Am I wrong? Here's the relevant text:
> Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
> Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
> Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
> Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
(and then as a sub-section of Section 8):
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
> suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for
> governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
> States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the
> Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
> discipline prescribed by Congress;
And from Article II, Section 2:
> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
> States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
> Service of the United States;
Explain to me how a well regulated militia, within the bounds of the US
Constitution, has anything at all to with an individual's right to bear arms.
> BTW, the Supreme Court does not have the final say as to what is or is not
> law in the U.S -- the people do. The people control govt. by voting, by
> making our needs and opinions well understood, and by sitting as jurors
> (i.e. jury nullification
Well, sure. And if that were in reality the case, then it would render
moot all fears about totalitarian government and torture camps for those who
disagree with the Fed. I don't understand how you can invoke on one hand
the need to stop government from doing anything not spelled out explicitly,
yet on the other hand say "well, it's all up to the people, anyway."
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) I have posted about the Ashwander Doctrine before -- read it and connect the dots, pretty please. (URL) the record, I am not exactly a card-carrying NRA kinda guy...I barely care what they do. (...) No, taxation is Constitutional because of (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Dave, your post is too full of errors to take on as a whole so I picked just this one spot. I think it is also an erroneous statement. I could certainly mount arguments that would show that the second amendment is indeed a protection to keep (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
