Subject:
|
For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:23:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1613 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Didn't we dispose of this red herring already? Really, it's rather tiresome
> going round and round and round with you...<snip>...and it doesn't score you
> any points with the regulars, you may want to stop.
Yeah, really!
What I find annoying is the refusal of some people to do their own homework
(i.e ANY reading at all).
I think the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is actually fairly clear, although
at this precise moment in time it may be wished that the framers had used
more precise and absolutely unequivocal language. For those that doubt the
meaning as intended by the framers of the Constitution I provide the
following *beginners* list of points that has been checked against multiple
sources -- argue against the meaning of the 2nd Amendment if you are so
inclined, but let's stop arguing over the meaning of it regardless of what
current authorities may claim to the contrary [N.B. an attempt has been made
to cite URLs that would be deemed as carrying authority because of where
they are hosted, but you can find all of these quotes in your local library
too!]:
00. The framers regularly used the terms army and militia, but not
interchangably! There is ample proof of this.
01. "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands]."
wrote Thomas Jefferson in his proposed Virginia Constitution of 1776. It's
interesting to note that he also proposed this: "There shall be no standing
army but in time of actual war." http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jeffcons.htm
02. "The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves,
... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
-- "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard
Henry Lee or Melancton Smith). http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm
03. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials."
George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the
Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_13.htm
[N.B. And for the one *genius*: no the "whole people" doesn't include
children, slaves, prisoners, or your dog -- one has to have status to have
the rights of citizenship: namely, the status of freeman. The Constitution
notes some 22 different statuses for persons, obviously many of them are not
on par with the status of freeman. Get over it.]
04. "Whenever governments 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." --Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken
during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750,
August 17, 1789. http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html
05. " ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to
form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the
liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if
at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to
defend their rights ..." -- Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Number 29.
Please note the suggestion that the people are armed and are able to stand
against the government's own army if necessary. The Federalist, for those
that do not know, was a series of essays that helped cvonvince people to
support the ratification of the Constitution.
http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/federalist/feder29.html
06. "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which
Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the
governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison in
Federalist Number 46 http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/federalist/feder46.html
07. "The signification attributed to the term, Militia, appear from the
debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and
States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough
that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert
for the common defense... And further, that ordinarily when called for
service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
themselves and of a kind in common use at the time." --US Supreme Court, US
v Miller 1939
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174
It's pretty clear to me that the framers of the Constitution meant for every
able man to bear arms -- a fact they had to assert again and again to argue
against the Anti-Federalists notion that a standing army controlled by the
central govt. would replace the militia. From a modern perspective some of
the arguing gets somewhat distasteful -- take Virginia as an example: in
Virginia white freemen feared a slave insurrection and it was for this
reason that they ABSOLUTELY had to be assured that their right to keep and
bear arms would be respected. It should be remembered that each man's
reasons for wanting to preserve the right to keep and bear arms for himself
doesn't diminish the right as preserved for all. At a later time, the right
to keep and bear arms was a right exercised by many freed slaves as the
distinguishing feature of their change of status from slave to freeman.
It's an interesting idea to try to confuse the real debate with BS like this
-- I mean, interesting from the standpoint of rhetorical technique. The
assertion that we do not know the clear, historical meaning of the 2nd
Amendment has no real legitimacy; but it has sadly become a political
football. We de facto have the right and freedom to bear arms, the presence
of gun shops in every city is proof of this fact; the desire to control,
regulate, diminish, or destroy this freedom -- to alter the current state of
things -- is the crux of the ongoing debate. But nothing changes the real
meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
Freemen bear arms.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) Didn't we dispose of this red herring already? Really, it's rather tiresome going round and round and round with you, you're displaying the Scott Arthur nature here a bit... and it doesn't score you any points with the regulars, you may want (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
220 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
|
|
|
|
