Subject:
|
Re: 2nd Amendment -- Bare Bones
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Sep 2002 23:18:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
381 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> I'm not trying to be obtuse or disingenuous, but what's the resolution?
> For the moment, I'd prefer to avoid appeals to extra-constitutional
> documents and writings from the period and rather stick with the text of The
> Constitution as written. Any ideas?
Well, perhaps there is no resolution -- we certainly have more than one
instance of bad law, bad stare decisis, coming down from the high
court...and it does annoy. The court has, in particular, been guilty of
making bad law that is in the way of protecting the integrity and unity of
the Federal govt. I don't really want to rehash all of that right now, but
we could if it was wanted. In the final analysis, and I hate to say/admit
this, but the Supreme Court is not probably the best source of information
as to what the 2nd Amendment means because they are an interested party --
certainly, they want it to mean whatever keeps the govt. in a position of
power. As was feared by Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts:
"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."
Hasn't the Supreme Court already done this with some of it's decisions?
Hence the confusion...
The aim of the framers of the Constitution was to place ALL final political
power in the people -- in a sense, into the hands of a significant majority.
That group of people would know the correct purpose of the militia -- if an
insurrection was being put down, it would likely be one not agreed to by
many members of the militia. If it were an insurrection led by the militia
-- the people -- well, things change...
" ... 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.
I mean, Hamilton was an evil, evil guy that did things that infuriate me
hundreds of years later (yes, the bullet -- "Got milk?") -- but here he
recognizes one of the clear purposes of the 2nd Amendment. If the federal
govt. could ideally "regulate" our gun rights into oblivion, what is the
context of Hamilton's statement? How would it be possible for the people,
the militia, to be "little if at all inferior" to a standing army without
guns? Doesn't it have to be admitted that for the anti-gun contingent to be
right, dozens of statements made more than two hundreds years ago would ALL
have to be incorrect! The very words that allowed for the ratification of
the Constitution in the several states would have to be false!
Today people have gotten very used to being led, rather than leading. I
think it's possible that most people would be unable to be members of such a
militia for a variety of reasons, starting with the fact that they don't
have a very firm grasp of the political place of the freeman in our system.
We have REAL problems that cannot easily be resolved -- we have REAL
conflicts arising as the system breaks down.
Jury nullification is as good an example as any. Read the cite Larry and I
keep putting out there. It's a very early case where the Supreme Court had
original jurisdiction of a case -- an extraordinary circumstance in and of
itself. Jay laid out the meaning of the jury powers right there. Today you
could be convicted of a crime for quoting Jay to another juror during a trial.
Doesn't that seem insane?
We have REAL problems. I just happen to think the clear meaning of the 2nd
Amendment is not, or shouldn't be, one of them. Except as a political
football, in many ways it is NOT de facto a huge problem. Not yet...
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: 2nd Amendment -- Bare Bones
|
| (...) Heh. I think that this is the exact crux of the problem. I confess that I am not as well-read on this subject as my peers here, but a lot of what I've read identifies the first clause of the amendment as the vital part. I can't get too deep (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
